A century of science in America _ with special reference to the American Journal of Science_ 1818-1918 968 downloads.pdf

The Project Gutenberg eBook of A century of science in
America
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at
www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you
will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.

Title: A century of science in America
with special reference to the American Journal of Science,
1818-1918

Contributor: Edward Salisbury Dana
Joseph Barrell
Wesley R. Coe
H. W. Foote
William E. Ford
George L. Goodale
Herbert E. Gregory
Richard Swann Lull
Leigh Page
Louis V. Pirsson
Charles Schuchert
George Otis Smith
Robert B. Sosman
Horace L. Wells

Release date: May 11, 2024 [eBook #73605]

Language: English

Original publication: London: Yale University Press, 1918

Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/73605

Credits: Richard Tonsing, Charlene Taylor, and the Online Distributed
Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was
produced from images generously made available by The
Internet Archive/American Libraries.)

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK A CENTURY OF
SCIENCE IN AMERICA ***

Transcriber’s Note:
New original cover art included with this eBook is
granted to the public domain.

YALE UNIVERSITY
MRS. HEPSA ELY SILLIMAN
MEMORIAL LECTURES

In the year 1883 a legacy of eighty thousand dollars was left to the
President and Fellows of Yale College in the city of New Haven, to be held
in trust, as a gift from her children, in memory of their beloved and honored
mother, Mrs. Hepsa Ely Silliman.
On this foundation Yale College was requested and directed to establish
an annual course of lectures designed to illustrate the presence and
providence, the wisdom and goodness of God, as manifested in the natural
and moral world. These were to be designated as the Mrs. Hepsa Ely
Silliman Memorial Lectures. It was the belief of the testator that any orderly
presentation of the facts of nature or history contributed to the end of this
foundation more effectively than any attempt to emphasize the elements of
doctrine or of creed; and he therefore provided that lectures on dogmatic or
polemical theology should be excluded from the scope of this foundation,
and that the subjects should be selected rather from the domains of natural
science and history, giving special prominence to astronomy, chemistry,
geology, and anatomy.
It was further directed that each annual course should be made the basis
of a volume to form part of a series constituting a memorial to Mrs.
Silliman. The memorial fund came into the possession of the Corporation of
Yale University in the year 1901; and the present volume constitutes the
fourteenth of the series of memorial lectures.

SILLIMAN MEMORIAL LECTURES

PUBLISHED BY YALE UNIVERSITY PRESS

ELECTRICITY AND MATTER. By Joseph John Thomson, d.s.c., l.l.d,
ph.d., f.r.s., Fellow of Trinity College and Cavendish Professor of
Experimental Physics, Cambridge University.

(Fourth printing.) Price $1.50 net.

THE INTEGRATIVE ACTION OF THE NERVOUS SYSTEM. By
Charles S. Sherrington, d.sc., m.d., hon. ll.d. tor., f.r.s., Holt
Professor of Physiology, University of Liverpool.

(Fifth Printing.) Price $5.00 net.

RADIOACTIVE TRANSFORMATIONS. By Ernest Rutherford, d.sc,
ll.d., f.r.s., Macdonald Professor of Physics, McGill University.

Price $5.00 net.

EXPERIMENTAL AND THEORETICAL APPLICATIONS OF
THERMODYNAMICS TO CHEMISTRY. By Dr. Walter Nernst,
Professor and Director of the Institute of Physical Chemistry in the
University of Berlin.

Price $1.50 net.

PROBLEMS OF GENETICS. By William Bateson, m.a., f.r.s., Director
of the John Innes Horticultural Institution, Merton Park, Surrey,
England.

(Second printing.) Price $5.00 net.

STELLAR MOTIONS. With Special Reference to Motions Determined
by Means of the Spectrograph. By William Wallace Campbell, so.d,
ll.d., Director of the Lick Observatory, University of California.

(Second printing.) Price $5.00 net.

THEORIES OF SOLUTIONS. By Svante Arrhenius, ph.d., sc.d., m.d.,
Director of the Physico-Chemical Department of the Nobel Institute,
Stockholm, Sweden.

(Third printing.) Price $3.00 net.

IRRITABILITY. A Physiological Analysis of the General Effect of
Stimuli in Living Substances. By Max Verworn, m.d., ph.d., Professor
at Bonn Physiological Institute.

(Second printing.) Price $5.00 net.

PROBLEMS OF AMERICAN GEOLOGY. By William North Rice,
Frank D. Adams, Arthur P. Coleman, Charles D. Walcott,
Waldemar Lindgren, Frederick Leslie Ransome, and William D.
Matthew.

(Second printing.) Price $5.00 net.

THE PROBLEM OF VOLCANISM. By Joseph Paxson Iddings, ph.d.,
sc.d.

(Second printing.) Price $5.00 net.

ORGANISM AND ENVIRONMENT AS ILLUSTRATED BY THE
PHYSIOLOGY OF BREATHING. By John Scott Haldane, m.d., ll.d.,
f.r.s., Fellow of New College, Oxford University.

(Second printing.) Price $1.25 net.

A CENTURY OF SCIENCE
IN AMERICA

A

CENTURY OF SCIENCE

IN AMERICA

WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE AMERICAN

JOURNAL OF SCIENCE 1818–1918

BY

EDWARD SALISBURY DANA · CHARLES SCHUCHERT
HERBERT E. GREGORY · JOSEPH BARRELL · GEORGE OTIS SMITH
RICHARD SWANN LULL · LOUIS V. PIRSSON
WILLIAM E. FORD · R. B. SOSMAN · HORACE L. WELLS
HARRY W. FOOTE · LEIGH PAGE · WESLEY R. COE
AND GEORGE L. GOODALE

NEW HAVEN

YALE UNIVERSITY PRESS
LONDON · HUMPHREY MILFORD · OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS
MDCCCCXVIII

COPYRIGHT, 1918, BY
YALE UNIVERSITY PRESS

PREFATORY NOTE

The present book commemorates the one-hundredth anniversary of the
founding of the American Journal of Science by Benjamin Silliman in July,
1818. The opening chapter gives a somewhat detailed account of the early
days of the Journal, with a sketch of its subsequent history. The remaining
chapters are devoted to the principal branches of science which have been
prominent in the pages of the Journal. They have been written with a view
to showing in each case the position of the science in 1818 and the general
progress made during the century; special prominence is given to American
science and particularly to the contributions to it to be found in the Journal’s
pages. References to specific papers in the Journal are in most cases
included in the text and give simply volume, page, and date, as (24, 105,
1833); when these and other references are in considerable number they
have been brought together as a Bibliography at the end of the chapter.
The entire cost of the present book is defrayed from the income of the
Mrs. Hepsa Ely Silliman Memorial Fund, established under the will of
Augustus Ely Silliman, a nephew of Benjamin Silliman, who died in 1884.
Certain of the chapters here printed have been made the basis of a series of
seven Silliman Lectures in accordance with the terms of that gift. The
selection of these lectures has been determined by the convenience of the
gentlemen concerned and in part also by the nature of the subject.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
Prefatory Note vii
I. The American Journal of Science from
1818 to 1918. Edward Salisbury Dana 13
II. A Century of Geology: The Progress of
Historical Geology in North America.
Charles Schuchert 60
III. A Century of Geology: Steps of Progress
in the Interpretation of Land Forms.
Herbert E. Gregory 122
IV. A Century of Geology (continued): The
Growth of Knowledge of Earth
Structure. Joseph Barrell 153
V. A Century of Government Geological
Surveys. George Otis Smith 193
VI. On the Development of Vertebrate
Paleontology. Richard Swann Lull 217
VII. The Rise of Petrology as a Science.
Louis V. Pirsson 248
VIII. The Growth of Mineralogy from 1818 to
1918. William E. Ford 268
IX. The Work of the Geophysical Laboratory
of the Carnegie Institution of
Washington. R. B. Sosman 284
X. The Progress of Chemistry during the
Past One Hundred Years. Horace L.
Wells and Harry W. Foote 288
XI. A Century’s Progress in Physics. Leigh
Page 335
XII. A Century of Zoology in America.
Wesley R. Coe 391
XIII. The Development of Botany since 1818.
George L. Goodale 439

PORTRAITS

Benjamin Silliman Frontispiece
From a painting by G. S. Hubbard, Esq., in possession of
Miss Henrietta W. Hubbard
Benjamin Silliman, Jr. opposite
page 28
James D. Dana „„ 36
Edward S. Dana „„ 48
Wolcott Gibbs „„ 52
James Hall „„ 84
G. K. Gilbert „„ 140
Edward Hitchcock „„ 156
O. C. Marsh „„ 232
F. V. Hayden „„ 196
J. W. Powell „„ 204
Clarence King „„ 208
George J. Brush „„ 276
J. Willard Gibbs „„ 324
H. A. Newton „„ 336
James Clerk Maxwell „„ 348
Louis Agassiz „„ 404
Thomas H. Huxley „„ 410
A. E. Verrill „„ 412
Asa Gray „„ 444
Charles Darwin „„ 452

A CENTURY OF SCIENCE
IN AMERICA

I
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SCIENCE FROM 1818 TO
1918

By EDWARD S. DANA

Introduction.

In July, 1818, one hundred years ago, the first number of the American
Journal of Science and Arts was given to the public. This is the only
scientific periodical in this country to maintain an uninterrupted existence
since that early date, and this honor is shared with hardly more than half a
dozen other independent scientific periodicals in the world at large. Similar
publications of learned societies for the same period are also very few in
number.
It is interesting, on the occasion of this centenary, to glance back at the
position of science and scientific literature in the world’s intellectual life in
the early part of the nineteenth century, and to consider briefly the

marvelous record of combined scientific and industrial progress of the
hundred years following—subjects to be handled in detail in the succeeding
chapters. It is fitting also that we should recall the man who founded the
Journal, the conditions under which he worked, and the difficulties he
encountered. Finally, we must review, but more briefly, the subsequent
history of what has so often been called after its founder, “Silliman’s
Journal.”
The nineteenth century, and particularly the hundred years in which we
are now interested, must always stand out in the history of the world as the
period which has combined the greatest development in all departments of
science with the most extraordinary industrial progress. It was not until this
century that scientific investigation used to their full extent the twin
methods of observation and experiment. In cases too numerous to mention
they have given us first, a tentative hypothesis; then, through the testing and
correcting of the hypothesis by newly acquired data, an accepted theory has
been arrived at; finally, by the same means carried further has been
established one of nature’s laws.
Early Science.—Looking far back into the past, it seems surprising that
science should have had so late a growth, but the wonderful record of man’s
genius in the monuments he erected and in architectural remains shows that
the working of the human mind found expression first in art and further
man also turned to literature. So far as man’s thought was constructive, the
early results were systems of philosophy, and explanations of the order of
things as seen from within, not as shown by nature herself. We date the real
beginning of science with the Greeks, but it was the century that preceded
Aristotle that saw the building of the Parthenon and the sculptures of
Phidias. Even the great Aristotle himself (384–322 B. C.) though he is
sometimes called the “founder of natural history,” was justly accused by
Lord Bacon many centuries later of having formed his theories first and
then to have forced the facts to agree with them.
The bringing together of facts through observation alone began, to be
sure, very early, for it was the motion of the sun, moon, and stars and the
relation of the earth to them that first excited interest, and, especially in the
countries of the East, led to the accumulation of data as to the motion of the
planets, of comets and the occurrence of eclipses. But there was no
coördination of these facts and they were so involved in man’s superstition

as to be of little value. In passing, however, it is worthy of mention that the
Chinese astronomical data accumulated more than two thousand years
before the Christian era have in trained hands yielded results of no small
significance.
Doubtless were full knowledge available as to the science existing in the
early civilizations, we should rate it higher than we can at present, but it
would probably prove even then to have been developed from within, like
the philosophies of the Greeks, and with but minor influence from nature
herself. It is indeed remarkable that down to the time with which we are
immediately concerned, it was the branches of mathematics, as arithmetic
and geometry and later their applications, that were first and most fully
developed: in other words those lines of science least closely connected
with nature.
Of the importance to science of the Greek school at Alexandria in the
second and third centuries B. C., there can be no question. The geometry of
Euclid (about 300 B. C.) was marvelous in its completeness as in clearness
of logical method. Hipparchus (about 160–125 B. C.) gave the world the
elements of trigonometry and developed astronomy so that Ptolemy 260
years later was able to construct a system that was well developed, though
in error in the fundamental idea as to the relative position of the earth. It is
interesting to note that the Almagest of Ptolemy was thought worthy of
republication by the Carnegie Institution only a year or two since. This
great astronomical work, by the way, had no successor till that of the Arab
Ulugh Bey in the fifteenth century, which within a few months has also
been made available by the same Institution.
To the Alexandrian school also belongs Archimedes (287–212 B. C.),
who, as every school boy knows, was the founder of mechanics and in fact
almost a modern physical experimenter. He invented the water screw for
raising water; he discovered the principle of the lever, which appealed so
keenly to his imagination that he called for a ποῦ στῶ, or fulcrum, on which
to place it so as to move the earth itself. He was still nearer to modern
physics in his reputed plan of burning up a hostile fleet by converging the
sun’s rays by a system of great mirrors.
To the Romans, science owes little beyond what is implied in their vast
architectural monuments, buildings and aqueducts which were erected at
home and in the countries of their conquests. The elder Pliny (23–79 A. D.)

most nearly deserved to be called a man of science, but his work on natural
history, comprised in thirty-seven volumes, is hardly more than a
compilation of fable, fact, and fancy, and is sometimes termed a collection
of anecdotes. He lost his life in the “grandest geological event of antiquity,”
the eruption of Vesuvius, which is vividly described by his nephew, the
younger Pliny, in “one of the most remarkable literary productions in the
domain of geology” (Zittel).
With the fall of Rome and the decline of Roman civilization came a
period of intellectual darkness, from which the world did not emerge until
the revival of learning in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. Then the
extension of geographical knowledge went hand in hand with the
development of art, literature, and the birth of a new science. Copernicus
(1473–1543) gave the world at last a sun-controlled solar system; Kepler
(1571–1630) formulated the laws governing the motion of the planets;
Galileo (1564–1642) with his telescope opened up new vistas of
astronomical knowledge and laid the foundations of mechanics; while
Leonardo da Vinci (1452–1519), painter, sculptor, architect, engineer,
musician and true scientist, studied the laws of falling bodies and solved the
riddle of the fossils in the rocks. Still later Newton (1642–1727) established
the law of gravitation, developed the calculus, put mechanics upon a solid
basis and also worked out the properties of lenses and prisms so that his
Optics (1704) will always have a prominent place in the history of science.
From the time of the Renaissance on science grew steadily, but it was not
till the latter half of the eighteenth century that the foundations in most of
the lines recognized to-day were fully laid. Much of what was
accomplished then is, at least, outlined in the chapters following.
Our standpoint in the early years of the nineteenth century, just before the
American Journal had its beginning, may be briefly summarized as follows:
A desire for knowledge was almost universal and, therefore, also a general
interest in the development of science. Mathematics was firmly established
and the mathematical side of astronomy and natural philosophy—as physics
was then called—was well developed. Many of the phenomena of heat and
their applications, as in the steam engine of Watt, were known and even the
true nature of heat had been almost established by our countryman, Count
Rumford; but of electricity there were only a few sparks of knowledge.
Chemistry had had its foundation firmly laid by Priestley, Lavoisier, and

Dalton, while Berzelius was pushing rapidly forward. Geology had also its
roots down, chiefly through the work of Hutton and William Smith, though
the earth was as yet essentially an unexplored field. Systematic zoology and
botany had been firmly grounded by Buffon, Lamarck and Cuvier, on the
one hand, and Linnæus on the other; but of all that is embraced under the
biology of the latter half of the nineteenth century the world knew nothing.
The statements of Silliman in his Introductory Remarks in the first number,
quoted in part on a following page, put the matter still more fully, but they
are influenced by the enthusiasm of the time and he could have had little
comprehension of what was to be the record of the next one hundred years.
Now, leaving this hasty and incomplete retrospect and coming down to
1918, we find the contrast between to-day and 1818 perhaps most strikingly
brought out, on the material side, if we consider the ability of man, in the
early part of the nineteenth century, to meet the demands upon him in the
matter of transportation of himself and his property. In 1800, he had hardly
advanced beyond his ancestor of the earliest civilization; on the contrary, he
was still dependent for transportation on land upon the muscular efforts of
himself and domesticated animals, while at sea he had only the use of sails
in addition. The first application of the steam engine with commercial
success was made by Fulton when, in 1807, the steamboat “Clermont”
made its famous trip on the Hudson River. Since then, step by step,
transportation has been made more and more rapid, economical and
convenient, both on land and water. This has come first through the
perfection of the steam engine; later through the agency of electricity, and
still further and more universally by the use of gasolene motors. Finally, in
these early years of the twentieth century, what seemed once a wild dream
of the imagination has been realized, and man has gained the conquest of
the air; while the perfection of the submarine is as wonderful as its work
can be deadly.
Hardly less marvelous is the practical annihilation of space and time in
the electric transmission of human thought and speech by wire and by ether
waves. While, still further, the same electrical current now gives man his
artificial illumination and serves him in a thousand ways besides.
But the limitations of space have also been conquered, during the same
period, by the spectroscope which brings a knowledge of the material
nature of the sun and the fixed stars and of their motion in the line of sight;

while spectrum analysis has revealed the existence of many new elements
and opened up vistas as to the nature of matter.
The chemist and the physicist, often working together in the investigation
of the problems lying between their two departments, have accumulated a
staggering array of new facts from which the principles of their sciences
have been deduced. Many new elements have been discovered, in fact
nearly all called for by the periodic law; the so-called fixed gases have been
liquefied, and now air in liquid form is almost a plaything; the absolute zero
has been nearly reached in the boiling point of helium; physical
measurements in great precision have been carried out in both directions for
temperatures far beyond any scale that was early conceived possible; the
atom, once supposed to be indivisible, has been shown to be made up of the
much smaller electrons, while its disintegration in radium and its
derivatives has been traced out and with consequences only as yet partly
understood but certainly having far-reaching consequences; at one point we
seem to be brought near to the transmutation of the elements which was so
long the dream of the alchemist. Still again photography has been
discovered and perfected and with the use of X-rays it gives a picture of the
structure of bodies totally opaque to the eye; the same X-rays seem likely to
locate and determine the atoms in the crystal.
Here and at many other points we are reaching out to a knowledge of the
ultimate nature of matter.
In geology, vast progress has been made in the knowledge of the earth,
not only as to its features now exhibited at or near the surface, but also as to
its history in past ages, of the development of its structure, the minute
history of its life, the phenomena of its earthquakes, volcanoes, etc.
Geological surveys in all civilized countries have been carried to a high
degree of perfection.
In biology, itself a word which though used by Lamarck did not come
into use till taken up by Huxley, and then by Herbert Spencer in the middle
of the century, the progress is no less remarkable as is well developed in a
later chapter of this volume.
Although not falling within our sphere, it would be wrong, too, not to
recognize also the growth of medicine, especially through the knowledge of
bacteria and their functions, and of disease germs and the methods of

combating them. The world can never forget the debt it owes to Pasteur and
Lister and many later investigators in this field.
To follow out this subject further would be to encroach upon the field of
the chapters following, but, more important and fundamental still than all
the facts discovered and the phenomena investigated has been the
establishment of certain broad scientific principles which have
revolutionized modern thought and shown the relation between sciences
seemingly independent. The law of conservation of energy in the physical
world and the principle of material and organic evolution may well be said
to be the greatest generalizations of the human mind. Although suggestions
in regard to them, particularly the latter, are to be found in the writings of
early authors, the establishment and general acceptance of these principles
belong properly to the middle of the nineteenth century. They stand as the
crowning achievement of the scientific thought of the period in which we
are interested.
Any mere enumeration of the vast fund of knowledge accumulated by the
efforts of man through observation and experiment in the period in which
we are interested would be a dry summary, and yet would give some
measure of what this marvelous period has accomplished. As in geography,
man’s energy has in recent years removed the reproach of a “Dark
Continent,” of “unexplored” central Asia and the once “inaccessible polar
regions,” so in the different departments of science, he has opened up many
unknown fields and accumulated vast stores of knowledge. It might even
seem as if the limit of the unknown were being approached. There remains,
however, this difference in the analogy, that in science the fundamental
relations—as, for example, the nature of gravitation, of matter, of energy, of
electricity; the actual nature and source of life—the solution of these and
other similar problems still lies in the future. What the result of continued
research may be no one can predict, but even with these possibilities before
us, it is hardly rash to say that so great a combined progress of pure and
applied science as that of the past hundred years is not likely to be again
realized.

Scientific Periodical Literature in 1818.

The contrast in scientific activity between 1818 and 1918 is nowhere
more strikingly shown than in the amount of scientific periodical literature
of the two periods. Of the thousands of scientific journals and regular
publications by scientific societies and academies to-day, but a very small
number have carried on a continuous and practically unbroken existence
since 1818. This small amount of periodical scientific literature in the early
part of the last century is significant as giving a fair indication of the very
limited extent to which scientific investigation appealed to the intellectual
life of the time. Some definite facts in regard to the scientific publications
of those early days seem to be called for.
Learned societies and academies, devoted to literature and science, were
formed very early but at first for occasional meetings only and regular
publications were in most cases not begun till a very much later date. Some
of the earliest—not to go back of the Renaissance—are the following:

1560. Naples, Academia Secretorum Naturæ.
1603. Rome, Accademia dei Lincei.
1651. Leipzig, Academia Naturæ Curiosum.
1657. Florence, Accademia del Cimento.
1662. London, Royal Society.
1666. Paris, Académie des Sciences.
1690. Bologna, Accademia delle Scienze.
1700. Berlin, Societas Regia Scientiarum. This was the forerunner of the K. preuss. Akad. d.
Wissenschaften.

The Royal Society of London, whose existence dates from 1645, though
not definitely chartered until 1662, began the publication of its
“Philosophical Transactions” in 1665 and has continued it practically
unbroken to the present time; this is a unique record. Following this, other
early—but in most cases not continuous—publications were those of Paris
(1699); Berlin (1710); Upsala (1720); Petrograd, 1728; Stockholm (1739);
and Copenhagen (1743).

For the latter half of the eighteenth century, when the foundations of our
modern science were being rapidly laid, a considerable list might be given
of early publications of similar scientific bodies. Some of the prominent
ones are: Göttingen (1750), Munich (1759), Brussels (1769), Prague (1775),
Turin (1784), Dublin (1788), etc. The early years of the nineteenth century
saw the beginnings of many others, particularly in northern Italy. It is to be
noted that, as stated, only rarely were the publications of these learned
societies even approximately continuous. In the majority of cases the issue
of transactions or proceedings was highly irregular and often interrupted.
In this country the earliest scientific bodies are the following:

Philadelphia. American Philosophical Society, founded in 1743. Transactions were published
1771–1809; then interrupted until 1818 et seq.
Boston. American Academy of Arts and Sciences, founded in 1780. Memoirs, 1785–1821; and
then 1833 et seq.
New Haven. Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences, begun in 1799. Memoirs, vol. 1, 1810–
16; Transactions, 1866 et seq.
Philadelphia. Academy of Natural Sciences, begun in 1812. Journal, 1817–1842; and from 1847 et
seq.
New York. Lyceum of Natural History, 1817; later (1876) became the New York Academy of
Sciences. Annals from 1823; Proceedings from 1870.

The situation is somewhat similar as to independent scientific journals. A
list of the names of those started only to find an early death would be a very
long one, but interesting only historically and as showing a spasmodic but
unsustained striving after scientific growth.
It seems worth while, however, to give here the names of the periodicals
embracing one or more of the subjects of the American Journal, which
began at a very early date and most of which have maintained an
uninterrupted existence down to 1915. It should be added that certain
medical journals, not listed here, have also had a long and continued
existence.[1]

Early Scientific Journals.

1771–1823. Journal de Physique, Paris; title changed several times.
1787–. Botanical Magazine. (For a time known as Curtis’s Journal).
1789–1816. Annales de Chimie, Paris. Continued from 1817 on as the Annales de Chimie et de
Physique.
1790. Journal der Physik, Halle (by Gren); from 1799 on became the Annalen der Physik (und
Chemie), Halle, Leipzig. The title has been somewhat changed from time to time though publication
has been continuous. Often referred to by the name of the editor-in-chief, as Gren, Gilbert,
Poggendorff, Wiedemann, etc.
1795–1815. Journal des Mines, Paris, continued from 1816 as the Annales des Mines.
1796–1815. Bibliothèque Britannique, Geneva. From 1816–1840, Bibliothèque Universelle, etc.
1846–1857, Archives des Sci. phys. nat. Since 1858 generally known as the Bibliothèque
Universelle.
1797. Journal of Natural Philosophy, Chemistry and the Arts (Nicholson’s Journal) London; united
in 1814 with the Philosophical Magazine (Tilloch’s Journal).
1798–. The Philosophical Magazine (originally by Tilloch). This absorbed Nicholson’s Journal
(above) in 1814; also the Annals of Philosophy (Thomson, Phillips) in 1827 and Brewsters’
Edinburgh Journal of Science in 1832.
1798–1803. Allgemeines Journal der Chemie (Scherer’s Journal). 1803–1806; continued as Neues
Allg. J. etc. (Gehlen’s Journal). Later title repeatedly changed and finally (1834 et seq.) Journal für
praktische Chemie.
1816–18. Journal of Science and the Arts, London. 181930, Quarterly J. etc. 1830–31, Journal of
the Royal Institution of Great Britain.
1818. American Journal of Science and Arts until 1880, when “the Arts” was dropped, New
Haven, Conn. First Series, 1–50, 1818–1845; Second Series, 1–50, 1846–1870; Third Series, 1–50,
1871–1895; Fourth Series, 1–45, 1896–June, 1918.
1818. Flora, or Allgemeine botanische Zeitung. Regensburg, Munich.
1820–1867. London Journal of Arts and Sciences (after 1855, Newton’s Journal).
1824–. Annales des sciences naturelles. Paris.
1826–. Linnæa, Berlin, Halle; from 1882 united with Jahrb. d. K. botan. Gartens.
1828–1840. Magazine of Natural History, London; united 1838 with the Annals of Natural History,
and known since 1841 as the Annals and Magazine of Natural History.
1828–. Journal of the Franklin Institute, Philadelphia, from 1826; earlier (1825) the American
Mechanics Magazine.
1832–. Annalen der Chemie (und Pharmacie) often known as Liebig’s Annalen. Leipzig, Lemgo.

The Founder of the American Journal of Science.

The establishment of a scientific journal in this country in 1818 was a
pioneer undertaking, requiring of its founder a rare degree of energy,
courage, and confidence in the future. It was necessary, not only to obtain
the material to fill its pages and the money to carry on the enterprise, but,
before the latter end could be accomplished, an audience must be found
among those who had hitherto felt little or no interest in the sciences. This
great work was accomplished by Benjamin Silliman, “the guardian of
American Science,” whose influence was second to none in the early
development of science in this country. Before speaking in some detail of
the early years of this Journal and of its subsequent history, it is proper that
some words should be given to its founder.
Benjamin Silliman, son of a general prominent in the Revolutionary War,
was born in Trumbull, Connecticut, on August 8, 1779. He was a graduate
of Yale College of the class of 1796. Though at first a student of law and
accepted for the bar in Connecticut, he was called in 1802 by President
Timothy Dwight—a man of rare breadth of mind—to occupy the newly
made chair of chemistry, mineralogy (and later geology) in Yale College at
New Haven. To fit himself for the work before him he carried on extensive
studies at home and in Philadelphia and spent the year 1805 in travels and
study at London and Edinburgh, and also on the Continent. His active duties
began in 1806 and from this time on he was in the service of Yale College
until his resignation in 1853. From the first, Silliman met with remarkable
success as a teacher and public lecturer in arousing an interest in science.
His breadth of knowledge, his enthusiasm for his chosen subjects and
power of clear presentation, combined with his fine presence and attractive
personality, made him a great leader in the science of the country and gave
him a unique position in the history of its development.
Much might be said of the man and his work, but, the best tribute is that
of James Dwight Dana, given in his inaugural address upon the occasion of
his beginning his duties as Silliman professor of geology in Yale College.
This was delivered on February 18, 1856, in what was then known as the
“Cabinet Building.” Dana says in part:

“In entering upon the duties of this place, my thoughts turn rather to the past than to the subject of
the present hour. I feel that it is an honored place, honored by the labors of one who has been the
guardian of American Science from its childhood; who here first opened to the country the wonderful
records of geology; whose words of eloquence and earnest truth were but the overflow of a soul full
of noble sentiments and warm sympathies, the whole throwing a peculiar charm over his learning,
and rendering his name beloved as well as illustrious. Just fifty years since, Professor Silliman took
his station at the head of chemical and geological science in this college. Geology was then hardly
known by name in the land, out of these walls. Two years before, previous to his tour in Europe, the
whole cabinet of Yale was a half-bushel of unlabelled stones. On visiting England he found even in
London no school public or private, for geological instruction, and the science was not named in the
English universities. To the mines, quarries, and cliffs of England, the crags of Scotland, and the
meadows of Holland he looked for knowledge, and from these and the teachings of Murray, Jameson,
Hall, Hope, and Playfair, at Edinburgh, Professor Silliman returned, equipped for duty,—albeit a
great duty,—that of laying the foundation, and creating almost out of nothing a department not before
recognized in any institution in America.
He began his work in 1806. The science was without books—and, too, without system, except
such as its few cultivators had each for himself in his conceptions. It was the age of the first
beginnings of geology, when Wernerians and Huttonians were arrayed in a contest.... Professor
Silliman when at Edinburgh witnessed the strife, and while, as he says, his earliest predilections were
for the more peaceful mode of rock-making, these soon yielded to the accumulating evidence, and
both views became combined in his mind in one harmonious whole. The science, thus evolved, grew
with him and by him; for his own labors contributed to its extension. Every year was a year of
expansion and onward development, and the grandeur of the opening views found in him a ready and
appreciative response....
And while the sciences and truth have thus made progress here, through these labors of fifty years,
the means of study in the institution have no less increased. Instead of that half-bushel of stones,
which once went to Philadelphia for names, in a candle-box, you see above the largest mineral
cabinet in the country, which but for Professor Silliman, his attractions and his personal exertions
together, would never have been one of the glories of old Yale....
Moreover, the American Journal of Science,—now in its thirty-seventh year and seventieth volume
[1856],—projected and long-sustained solely by Professor Silliman, while ever distributing truth, has
also been ever gathering honors, and is one of the laurels of Yale.
We rejoice that in laying aside his studies, after so many years of labor, there is still no abated
vigor.... He retires as one whose right it is to throw the burden on others. Long may he be with us, to
enjoy the good he has done, and cheer us by his noble and benign presence.”

In addition to these words of Dana, much of vital interest in regard to
Silliman and his work will be gathered from what is given in the pages
immediately following, quoted from his personal statements in the early
volumes of the Journal.

The Early Years of the Journal.

In no direction did Silliman’s enthusiastic activities in science produce a
more enduring result than in the founding and carrying on of the Journal.
The first suggestion in regard to the enterprise was made to Silliman by his
friend, Colonel George Gibbs, from whom the famous Gibbs collection of
minerals was bought by Yale College in 1825. Silliman says (25, 215,
1834):

“Col. Gibbs was the person who first suggested to the Editor the project of this Journal, and he
urged the topic with so much zeal and with such cogent arguments, as prevailed to induce the effort
in a case then viewed as of very dubious success. The subject was thus started in November, 1817;
proposals for the Journal were issued in January, 1818, and the first number appeared in July of that
year.”

He adds further (50, p. iii, 1847) that the conversation here recorded took
place “on an accidental meeting on board the steamboat Fulton in Long

Island Sound.” This was some ten years after Robert Fulton’s steamboat,
the Clermont, made its pioneer trip on the Hudson river, already alluded to.
The incident is not without significance in this connection. The deck of the
“Fulton” was not an inappropriate place for the inauguration of an
enterprise also great in its results for the country.
In the preface to the concluding volume of the First Series (loc. cit.)
Silliman adds the following remarks which show his natural modesty at the
thought of undertaking so serious a work. He says:

Although a different selection of an editor would have been much preferred, and many reasons,
public and personal, concurred to produce diffidence of success, the arguments of Col. Gibbs, whose
views on subjects of science were entitled to the most respectful consideration, and had justly great
weight, being pressed with zeal and ability, induced a reluctant assent; and accordingly, after due
consultation with many competent judges, the proposals were issued early in 1818, embracing the
whole range of physical science and its applications. The Editor in entering on the duty, regarded it as
an affair for life, and the thirty years of experience which he has now had, have proved that his views
of the exigencies of the service were not erroneous.

The plan with which the editor began his work and the lines laid down by
him at the outset can only be made clear by quoting entire the “Plan of the
Work” which opens the first number. It seems desirable also to give this in
its original form as to paragraphs and typography. The first page of the
cover of the opening number has also been reproduced here. It will be seen
that the plan of the young editor was as wide as the entire range of science
and its applications and extended out to music and the fine arts. This seems
strange to-day, but it must be remembered how few were the organs of
publication open to contributors at the time. If the plan was unreasonably
extended, that fact is to be taken not only as an expression of the
enthusiasm of the editor, as yet inexperienced in his work, but also of the
time when the sciences were still in their infancy.
He says (1, pp. v, vi):

“PLAN OF THE WORK.

This Journal is intended to embrace the circle of The Physical Sciences, with their application to
The Arts, and to every useful purpose.
It is designed as a deposit for original American communications; but will contain also occasional
selections from Foreign Journals, and notices of the progress of science in other countries. Within its
plan are embraced
Natural History, in its three great departments of Mineralogy, Botany, and Zoology;
Chemistry and Natural Philosophy, in their various branches: and Mathematics, pure and
mixed.
It will be a leading object to illustrate American Natural History, and especially our
Mineralogy and Geology.
The Applications of these sciences are obviously as numerous as physical arts, and physical
wants; for no one of these arts or wants can be named which is not connected with them.
While Science will be cherished for its own sake, and with a due respect for its own inherent
dignity; it will also be employed as the handmaid to the Arts. Its numerous applications to
Agriculture, the earliest and most important of them; to our Manufactures, both mechanical and
chemical; and to our Domestic Economy, will be carefully sought out, and faithfully made.
It is also within the design of this Journal to receive communications on Music, Sculpture,
Engraving, Painting, and generally on the fine and liberal, as well as useful arts;
On Military and Civil Engineering, and the art of Navigation.

Notices, Reviews, and Analyses of new scientific works, and of new Inventions, and Specifications
of Patents;
Biographical and Obituary Notices of scientific men; essays on Comparative Anatomy and
Physiology, and generally on such other branches of medicine as depend on scientific principles;
Meteorological Registers, and Reports of Agricultural Experiments: and we would leave room also
for interesting miscellaneous things, not perhaps exactly included under either of the above heads.
Communications are respectfully solicited from men of science, and from men versed in the
practical arts.
Learned Societies are invited to make this Journal, occasionally, the vehicle of their
communications to the Public.

The editor will not hold himself responsible for the sentiments and opinions advanced by his
correspondents; but he will consider it as an allowed liberty to make slight verbal alterations, where
errors may be presumed to have arisen from inadvertency.”

In the “Advertisement” which precedes the above statement in the first
number, the editor remarks somewhat naïvely that he “does not pledge
himself that all the subjects shall be touched upon in every number. This is
plainly impossible unless every article should be very short and
imperfect....”
The whole subject is discussed in all its relations in the “Introductory
Remarks” which open the first volume. No apology is needed for quoting at
considerable length, for only in this way can the situation be made clear, as
seen by the editor in 1818. Further we gain here a picture of the intellectual
life of the times and, not less interesting, of the mind and personality of the
writer. With a frank kindliness, eminently characteristic of the man, as will
be seen, he takes the public fully into his confidence. In the remarks made
in subsequent volumes,—also extensively quoted—the vicissitudes in the
conduct of the enterprise are brought out and when success was no longer
doubtful, there is a tone of quiet satisfaction which was also characteristic
and which the circumstances fully justified.
The Introductory Remarks begin as follows:

The age in which we live is not less distinguished by a vigorous and successful cultivation of
physical science, than by its numerous and important applications to the practical arts, and to the
common purposes of life.
In every enlightened country, men illustrious for talent, worth and knowledge, are ardently
engaged in enlarging the boundaries of natural science; and the history of their labors and discoveries
is communicated to the world chiefly through the medium of scientific journals. The utility of such
journals has thus become generally evident; they are the heralds of science; they proclaim its toils
and its achievements; they demonstrate its intimate connection as well with the comfort, as with the
intellectual and moral improvement of our species; and they often procure for it enviable honors and
substantial rewards.

Mention is then made of the journals existing in England and France in
1818 “which have long enjoyed a high and deserved reputation.” He then
continues:

From these sources our country reaps and will long continue to reap, an abundant harvest of
information: and if the light of science, as well as of day, springs from the East, we will welcome the
rays of both; nor should national pride induce us to reject so rich an offering.
But can we do nothing in return?
In a general diffusion of useful information through the various classes of society, in activity of
intellect and fertility of resource and invention, producing a highly intelligent population, we have no
reason to shrink from a comparison with any country. But the devoted cultivators of science in the
United States are comparatively few: they are, however, rapidly increasing in number. Among them
are persons distinguished for their capacity and attainments, and, notwithstanding the local feelings
nourished by our state sovereignties, and the rival claims of several of our larger cities, there is
evidently a predisposition towards a concentration of effort, from which we may hope for the
happiest results, with regard to the advancement of both the science and reputation of our country.
Is it not, therefore, desirable to furnish some rallying point, some object sufficiently interesting to
be nurtured by common efforts, and thus to become the basis of an enduring, common interest? To
produce these efforts, and to excite this interest, nothing, perhaps, bids fairer than a Scientific
Journal.

The valuable work already accomplished by various medical journals is
then spoken of and particularly that of the first scientific periodical in the
United States, Bruce’s Mineralogical Journal. This, as Silliman says (1, p. 3,
1818), although “both in this country and in Europe received in a very
flattering manner,” did not survive the death of its founder, and only a
single volume of 270 pages appeared (1810–1813).
Silliman continues:

No one, it is presumed, will doubt that a journal devoted to science, and embracing a sphere
sufficiently extensive to allure to its support the principal scientific men of our country, is greatly
needed; if cordially supported, it will be successful, and if successful, it will be a great public benefit.
Even a failure, in so good a cause, (unless it should arise from incapacity or unfaithfulness,) cannot
be regarded as dishonourable. It may prove only that the attempt was premature, and that our country
is not yet ripe for such an undertaking; for without the efficient support of talent, knowledge, and
money, it cannot long proceed. No editor can hope to carry forward such a work without the active
aid of scientific and practical men; but, at the same time, the public have a right to expect that he will
not be sparing of his own labour, and that his work shall be generally marked by the impress of his
own hand. To this extent the editor cheerfully acknowledges his obligations to the public; and it will
be his endeavour faithfully to redeem his pledge.
Most of the periodical works of our country have been short-lived. This, also, may perish in its
infancy; and if any degree of confidence is cherished that it will attain a maturer age, it is derived
from the obvious and intrinsic importance of the undertaking; from its being built upon permanent
and momentous national interests; from the evidence of a decided approbation of the design, on the
part of gentlemen of the first eminence, obtained in the progress of an extensive correspondence;
from assurance of support, in the way of contributions, from men of ability in many sections of the
union; and from the existence of such a crisis in the affairs of this country and of the world, as
appears peculiarly auspicious to the success of every wise and good undertaking.

An interesting discussion follows (pp. 5–8) as to the claims of the
different branches of science, and the extent to which they and their
applications had been already developed, also the spheres still open to
discovery.
The Introductory Remarks close, as follows:

In a word, the whole circle of physical science is directly applicable to human wants and
constantly holds out a light to the practical arts; it thus polishes and benefits society and everywhere
demonstrates both supreme intelligence and harmony and beneficence of design in the Creator.
The science of mathematics, both pure and mixed, can never cease to be interesting and important
to man, as long as the relations of quantity shall exist, as long as ships shall traverse the ocean, as
long as man shall measure the surface or heights of the earth on which he lives, or calculate the
distances and examine the relations of the planets and stars; and as long as the iron reign of war shall
demand the discharge of projectiles, or the construction of complicated defences.

The closing part of the paragraph shows the influence exerted upon the
mind of the editor by the serious wars of the years preceding 1818, a subject
alluded to again at the close of this chapter.

In February, 1822, with the completion of the fourth volume, the editor
reviews the situation which, though encouraging is by no means fully
assuring. He says (preface to vol. 4, dated Feb. 15, 1822):

Two years and a half have elapsed, since the publication of the first volume of this Journal, and
one year and ten months since the Editor assumed the pecuniary responsibility....
The work has not, even yet, reimbursed its expenses, (we speak not of editorial or of business
compensation,) we intend, that it has not paid for the paper, printing and engraving; the proprietors of
the first volume being in advance, on those accounts, and the Editor on the same score, with respect
to the aggregate expense of the three last volumes. This deficit is, however, no longer increasing, as
the receipts, at present, just about cover the expense of the physical materials, and of the manual
labour. A reiterated disclosure of this kind is not grateful, and would scarcely be manly, were it not
that the public, who alone have the power to remove the difficulty, have a right to a frank exposition
of the state of the case. As the patronage is, however, growing gradually more extensive, it is
believed that the work will be eventually sustained, although it may be long before it will command
any thing but gratuitous intellectual labour....
These facts, with the obvious one,—that its pages are supplied with contributions from all parts of
the Union, and occasionally from Europe, evince that the work is received as a national and not as a
local undertaking, and that the community consider it as having no sectional character. Encouraged
by this view of the subject, and by the favour of many distinguished men, both at home and abroad,
and supported by able contributors, to whom the Editor again tenders his grateful acknowledgments,

he will still persevere, in the hope of contributing something to the advancement of our science and
arts, and towards the elevation of our national character.

In the autumn of the same year, the editor closes the fifth volume with a
more confident tone (Sept. 25, 1822):

A trial of four years has decided the point, that the American Public will support this Journal. Its
pecuniary patronage is now such, that although not a lucrative, it is no longer a hazardous enterprise.
It is now also decided, that the intellectual resources of the country are sufficient to afford an
unfailing supply of valuable original communications and that nothing but perseverance and effort
are necessary to give perpetuity to the undertaking.
The decided and uniform expression of public favour which the Journal has received both at home
and abroad, affords the Editor such encouragement, that he cannot hesitate to persevere—and he now
renews the expression of his thanks to the friends and correspondents of the work, both in Europe and
the United States, requesting at the same time a continuance of their friendly influence and efforts.

Still again in the preface to the sixth volume (1823) he takes the reader
more fully into his confidence and shows that he regards the enterprise as
no longer of doubtful success. He says:

The conclusion of a new volume of a work, involving so much care, labour and responsibility, as
are necessarily attached, at the present day, to a Journal of Science and the Arts, naturally produces in
the mind, a state of not ungrateful calmness, and a disposition, partaking of social feeling, to say
something to those who honour such a production, by giving to it a small share of their money, and of
their time. The Editor’s first impression was, that the sixth volume should be sent into the world
without an introductory note, but he yields to the impulse already expressed, and to the established
usages of respectful courtesy to the public, which a short preface seems to imply. He has now
persevered almost five years, in an undertaking, regarded by many of the friends whom he originally
consulted, as hazardous, and to which not a few of them prophetically alloted only an ephemeral
existence. It has been his fortune to prosecute this work without, (till a very recent period,) returns,
adequate to its indispensable responsibilities;—under a heavy pressure of professional and private
duty; with trying fluctuations of health, and amidst severe and reiterated domestic afflictions. The
world are usually indulgent to allusions of this nature, when they have any relation to the discharge
of public duty; and in this view, it is with satisfaction, that the Editor adds, that he has now to look on
formidable difficulties, only in retrospect, and with something of the feeling of him, who sees a
powerful and vanquished foe, slowly retiring, and leaving a field no longer contested.
This Journal which, from the first, was fully supplied with original communications, is now
sustained by actual payment, to such an extent, that it may fairly be considered as an established
work; its patronage is regularly increasing, and we trust it will no longer justify such remarks as some
of the following, from the pen of one of the most eminent scientific men in Europe. “Nothing
surprises me more, than the little encouragement which your Journal,” (“which I always read with
very great interest, and of which I make great use,”) “experiences in America—this must surely arise
from the present depressed condition of trade, and cannot long continue.”

Six years more of uninterrupted editorial work passed by, the sixteenth
volume was completed, and the editor was now in a position to review the
whole situation up to 1829. This preface (dated July 1, 1829), which is
quoted nearly in full, cannot fail to be found particularly interesting and
from several standpoints, not the least for the insight it gives into the
writer’s mind. It is also noteworthy that at this early date it was found
possible to pay for original contributions, a privilege far beyond the means
of the editor of to-day.

When this Journal was first projected, very few believed that it would succeed.
Among others, Dr. Dorsey wrote to the editor; “I predict a short life for you, although I wish, as
the Spaniards say, that you may live a thousand years.” The work has not lived a thousand years, but
as it has survived more than the hundredth part of that period, no reason is apparent why it may not
continue to exist. To the contributors, disinterested and arduous as have been their exertions, the
editor’s warmest thanks are due; and they are equally rendered to numerous personal friends for their
unwavering support: nor ought those subscribers to be forgotten who, occupied in the common
pursuits of life, have aided, by their money, in sustaining the hazardous novelty of an American
Journal of Science. A general approbation, sufficiently decided to encourage effort, where there was
no other reward, has supported the editor; but he has not been inattentive to the voice of criticism,
whether it has reached him in the tones of candor and kindness, or in those of severity. We must not
look to our friends for the full picture of our faults. He is unwise who neglects the maxim—

—fas est ab hoste doceri,

and we may be sure, that those are quite in earnest, whose pleasure it is, to place faults in a strong
light and bold relief; and to throw excellencies into the shadow of total eclipse. Minds at once
enlightened and amiable, viewing both in their proper proportions, will however render the equitable
verdict;

Non ego paucis offendar maculis,—

It is not pretended that this Journal has been faultless; there may be communications in it which had
been better omitted, and it is not doubted that the power to command intellectual effort, by suitable
pecuniary reward, would add to its purity, as a record of science, and to its richness, as a repository of
discoveries in the arts.
But the editor, even now, offers payment, at the rate adopted by the literary Journals, for able
original communications, containing especially important facts, investigations and discoveries in
science, and practical inventions in the useful and ornamental Arts.
As however his means are insufficient to pay for all the copy, it is earnestly requested, that those
gentlemen, who, from other motives, are still willing to write for this Journal, should continue to
favor it with their communications. That the period when satisfactory compensation can be made to
all writers whose pieces are inserted, and to whom payment will be acceptable, is not distant, may
perhaps be hoped, from the spontaneous expression of the following opinion, by the distinguished
editor of one of our principal literary journals, whose letter is now before me. “The character of the
American Journal is strictly national, and it is the only vehicle of communication in which an
inquirer may be sure to find what is most interesting in the wide range of topics, which its design
embraces. It has become in short, not more identified with the science than the literature of the

country.” It is believed that a strict examination of its contents will prove that its character has been
decidedly scientific; and the opinion is often expressed to the editor, that in common with the
journals of our Academies, it is a work of reference, indispensable to him who would examine the
progress of American science during the period which it covers. That it might not be too repulsive to
the general reader, some miscellaneous pieces have occasionally occupied its pages; but in smaller
proportion, than is common with several of the most distinguished British Journals of Science.
Still, the editor has been frequently solicited, both in public and private, to make it more
miscellaneous, that it might be more acceptable to the intelligent and well educated man, who does
not cultivate science; but he has never lost sight of his great object, which was to produce and
concentrate original American effort in science, and thus he has foregone pecuniary returns, which by
pursuing the other course, might have been rendered important. Others would not have him admit
any thing that is not strictly and technically scientific; and would make this journal for mere
professors and amateurs; especially in regard to those numerous details in natural history, which
although important to be registered, (and which, when presented, have always been recorded in the
American Journal,) can never exclusively occupy the pages of any such work without repelling the
majority of readers.
If this is true even in Great Britain it is still more so in this country; and our savants, unless they
would be, not only the exclusive admirers, but the sole purchasers of their own works, must permit a
little of the graceful drapery of general literature to flow around the cold statues of science. The
editor of this Journal, strongly inclined, both from opinion and habit, to gratify the cultivators of
science, will still do everything in his power to promote its high interests, and as he hopes in a better
manner than heretofore; but these respectable gentlemen will have the courtesy, to yield something to
the reading literary, as well as scientific public, and will not, we trust, be disgusted, if now and then
an Oasis relieves the eye, and a living stream refreshes the traveller. Not being inclined to renew the
abortive experiment, to please every body, which has been so long renowned in fable; the editor will
endeavor to pursue, the even tenor of his way; altogther inclined to be courteous and useful to his
fellow travellers, and hoping for their kindness and services in return.

The Close of the First Series.

The “First Series,” as it was henceforth to be known, closed with the
fiftieth volume (1847, pp. xx + 347). This final volume is devoted to an
exhaustive index to the forty-nine volumes preceding. In the preface (dated
April 19, 1847) the elder Silliman, now the senior editor, reviews the work
that had been accomplished with a frank expression of his feeling of
satisfaction in the victory won against great obstacles; with this every
reader must sympathize. He quotes here at length (but in slightly altered
form) the matter from the first volume (1818), which has been already
reproduced almost entire, and then goes on as follows (pp. xi et seq.):

Such was the pledge which, on entering upon our editorial labors in 1818, we gave to the public,
and such were the views which we then entertained, regarding science and the arts as connected with
the interests and honor of our country and of mankind. In the retrospect, we realize a sober but
grateful feeling of satisfaction, in having, to the extent of our power, discharged these self-imposed
obligations; this feeling is chastened also by a deep sense of gratitude, first to God for life and power
continued for so high a purpose; and next, to our noble band of contributors, whose labors are
recorded in half a century of volumes, and in more than a quarter of a century of years. We need not
conceal our conviction, that the views expressed in these “Introductory Remarks,” have been fully
sustained by our fellow laborers.

Should we appear to take higher ground than becomes us, we find our vindication in the fact, that
we have heralded chiefly the doings and the fame of others. The work has indeed borne throughout
“the impress” of editorial unity of design, and much that has flowed from one pen, and not a little
from the pens of others, has been without a name. The materials for the pile, have however been
selected and brought in, chiefly by other hands, and if the monument which has been reared should
prove to be “aere perennius,” the honor is not the sole property of the architect; those who have
quarried, hewn and polished the granite and the marble, are fully entitled to the enduring record of
their names already deeply cut into the massy blocks, which themselves have furnished.
If a retrospective survey of the labors of thirty years on this occasion has rekindled a degree of
enthusiasm, it is a natural result of an examination of all our volumes from the contents of which we
have endeavored to make out a summary both of the laborers and their works....
The series of volumes must ever form a work of permanent interest on account of its exhibiting the
progress of American science during the long period which it covers. Comparing 1817 with 1847, we
mark on this subject a very gratifying change. The cultivators of science in the United States were
then few—now they are numerous. Societies and associations of various names, for the cultivation of
natural history, have been instituted in very many of our cities and towns, and several of them have
been active and efficient in making original observations and forming collections.

A summary follows presenting some facts as to the growth of scientific
societies and scientific collections in this country during the period
involved: Then the striking contrast between 1818 and 1847 in the matter of
organized effort toward scientific exploration is discussed, as follows (pp.
xvi et seq.):

When we began our Journal, not one of the States had been surveyed in relation to its geology and
natural history; now those that have not been explored are few in number. State collections and a
United States Museum hold forth many allurements to the young naturalist, as well as to the
archaeologist and the student of his own race. The late Exploring Expedition [Wilkes] with the
National Institute, has enriched the capital with treasures rarely equalled in any country, and the
Smithsonian Institution recently organized at Washington, is about to begin its labors for the increase
and diffusion of knowledge among men.
It must not be forgotten that the American Association of Geologists and Naturalists—composed
of individuals assembled from widely separate portions of the Union—by the seven sessions which it
has held, and by its rich volume of reports, has produced a concentration and harmony of effort
which promise happy results, especially as, like the British Association, it visits different towns and
cities in its annual progress.
Astronomy now lifts its exploring tubes from the observatories of many of our institutions. Even
the Ohio, which within the memory of the oldest living men, rolled along its dark waters through
interminable forests, or received the stains of blood from deadly Indian warfare, now beholds on one
of its most beautiful hills, and near its splendid city, a permanent observatory with a noble telescope
sweeping the heavens, by the hand of a zealous and gifted observer. At Washington also, under the
powerful patronage of the general government, an excellent observatory has been established, and is
furnished with superior instruments, under the direction of a vigilant and well instructed astronomer
—seconded by able and zealous assistants.

Here also (in Yale College) successful observations have been made with good instruments,
although no permanent building has been erected for an Observatory.
We only give single examples by way of illustration, for the history of the progress of science in
the United States, and of institutions for its promotion, during the present generation, would demand
a volume. It is enough for our purpose that science is understood and valued, and the right methods
of prosecuting it are known, and the time is at hand when its moral and intellectual use will be as
obvious as its physical applications. Nor is it to be forgotten that we have awakened an European
interest in our researches: general science has been illustrated by treasures of facts drawn from this
country, and our discoveries are eagerly sought for and published abroad.
While with our co-workers in many parts of our broad land, we rejoice in this auspicious change,
we are far from arrogating it to ourselves. Multiplied labors of many hands have produced the great
results. In the place which we have occupied, we have persevered despite of all discouragements, and
may, with our numerous coadjutors, claim some share in the honors of the day. We do not say that our
work might not have been better done—but we may declare with truth that we have done all in our
power, and it is something to have excited many others to effort and to have chronicled their deeds in
our annals. Let those that follow us labor with like zeal and perseverance, and the good cause will
continue to advance and prosper. It is the cause of truth—science is only embodied and sympathized
truth and in the beautiful conception of our noble Agassiz—“it tells the thought of God.”

The preface closes with some personal remarks:

In tracing back the associations of many gone-by years, a host of thoughts rush in, and pensive
remembrance of the dead who have labored with us casts deep shadows into the vista through which
we view the past.
Anticipation of the hour of discharge, when our summons shall arrive, gives sobriety to thought
and checks the confidence which health and continued power to act might naturally inspire, were we
not reproved, almost every day, by the death of some co-eval, co-worker, companion, friend or
patron. This very hour is saddened by such an event,—but we will continue to labor on, and strive to
be found at our post of duty, until there is nothing more for us to do; trusting our hopes for a future
life in the hands of Him who placed us in the midst of the splendid garniture of this lower world, and
who has made not less ample provision for another and a better.

Editorial and financial.—The editorial labors on the Journal were carried
by the elder Silliman alone for twenty years from 1818 to 1838. As has been
clearly shown in his statements, already quoted, he was, after the first
beginning, personally responsible also for the financial side of the
enterprise. With volume 34 (1838) the name of Benjamin Silliman, Jr., is
added as co-editor on the title page. He was graduated from Yale College
the year preceding and at this date was only twenty-one years old. His aid
was unquestionably of much service from the beginning and increased
rapidly with years and experience. The elder Silliman introduces him in the

preface to vol. 34 (1838) and comes back to the subject again in the preface
to vol. 50 (1847). The whole editorial situation is here presented as follows:

“During twenty years from the inception of this Journal, the editor labored alone, although
overtures for editorial cooperation had been made to him by gentlemen commanding his confidence
and esteem, and who would personally have been very acceptable. It was, however, his opinion that
the unity of purpose and action so essential to the success of such a work were best secured by
individuality; but he made every effort, and not without success, to conciliate the good will and to
secure the assistance of gentlemen eminent in particular departments of knowledge. On the title page
of No. 1, vol. 34, published in July, 1838, a new name is introduced: the individual to whom it
belongs having been for several years more or less concerned in the management of the Journal, and
from his education, position, pursuits and taste, as well as from affinity, being almost identified with
the editor, he seemed to be quite a natural ally, and his adoption into the editorship was scarcely a
violation of individual unity. His assistance has proved to be very important:—his near relation to the
senior editor prevents him from saying more, while justice does not permit him to say less.”

As is distinctly intimated in the preceding paragraph the elder Silliman
was fortunate in obtaining the assistance in his editorial labors of numerous
gentlemen interested in the enterprise. Their cooperation provided many of
the scientific notices, book reviews and the like contained in the Miscellany
with which each number closed. It is impossible, at this date, to render the
credit due to Silliman’s helpers or even to mention them by name. Very
early Asa Gray was one of these as occasional notes are signed by his
initials. Dr. Levi Ives of New Haven was another. Prof. J. Griscom of Paris
also sent numerous contributions even as early as 1825 (see 9, 154, 1825;
22, 192, 1832; 24, 342, 1833, and others).
Some statements have already been quoted from the early volumes as to
the business part of Silliman’s enterprise. The subject is taken up more fully
in the preface to volume 50 (1847). No one can fail to marvel at the energy
and optimism required to push the Journal forward when conditions must
have been so difficult and encouragement so scanty. He says (pp. iii, iv):

This Journal first appeared in July, 1818, and in June, 1819, the first volume of four numbers and
448 pages was completed. This scale of publication, originally deemed sufficient, was found
inadequate to receive all the communications, and as the receipts proved insufficient to sustain the
expenses, the work, having but three hundred and fifty subscribers, was, at the end of the year,
abandoned by the publishers.
An unprofitable enterprise not being attractive to the trade, ten months elapsed before another
arrangement could be carried into effect, and, therefore, No. 1 of vol. 2 was not published until April,
1820. The new arrangement was one of mutual responsibility for the expenses, but the Editor was
constrained nevertheless to pledge his own personal credit to obtain from a bank the funds necessary

to begin again, and from this responsibility he was, for a series of years, seldom released. The single
volume per annum being found insufficient for the communications, two volumes a year were
afterward published, commencing with the second volume.

The publishers whose names appear on the title page of the four numbers
of the first volume are “J. Eastburn & Co., Literary Rooms, Broadway, New
York” and “Howe & Spalding, New Haven.” For the second volume and
those immediately following the corresponding statement “printed and
published by S. Converse [New Haven] for the Editor.”
Silliman adds (p. iv):

At the conclusion of vol. 10, in February, 1826, the work was again left upon the hands of its
Editor; all its receipts had been absorbed by the expenses, and it became necessary now to pay a
heavy sum to the retiring publisher, as an equivalent for his copies of previous volumes, as it was
deemed necessary either to control the work entirely or to abandon it. The Editor was not willing to
think of the latter, especially as he was encouraged by public approbation, and was cheered onward
in his labors by eminent men both at home and abroad, and he saw distinctly that the Journal was
rendering service not only to science and the arts, but to the reputation of his country. He reflected,
moreover, that in almost every valuable enterprise perseverance in effort is necessary to success. He
being now sole proprietor, a new arrangement was made for a single year, the publishers being at
liberty, at the end of that time, to retire, and the Editor to resume the Journal should he prefer that
course.
The latter alternative he adopted, taking upon himself the entire concern, including both the
business and the editorial duties, and of course, all the correspondence and accounts. From that time
the work has proceeded without interruption, two volumes per annum having been published for the
last twenty years; and its pecuniary claims ceased to be onerous, although its means have never been
large....

Later in the same preface he adds (p. xiv):

It may be interesting to our readers to know something of the patronage of the Journal. It has never
reached one thousand paying subscribers, and has rarely exceeded seven or eight hundred—for many
years it fluctuated between six and seven hundred.
It has been far from paying a reasonable editorial compensation; often it has paid nothing, and at
present it does little more than pay its bills. The number of engravings and the extra labor in printer’s
composition, cause it to be an expensive work, while its patronage is limited.

It is difficult at this date to give any adequate statement of the amount of
encouragement and active assistance given to Silliman by his scientific
colleagues in New Haven and elsewhere—a subject earlier alluded to. It is

fortunately possible, however, to acknowledge the generous aid received by
the Journal in the early days from a source near at hand. It has already been
noted in another place that the dawning activity of science at New Haven
was recognized by the founding of the “Connecticut Academy of Arts and
Sciences,” formally established at New Haven in 1799 and the third
scientific body to be organized in this country. From the beginning of the
Journal in 1818, the Connecticut Academy freely gave its support both in
papers for publication and at least on one occasion later it gave important
financial aid. Upon the occasion of the celebration of the centennial
anniversary of the Academy on October 11, 1899, Professor, later Governor,
Baldwin, the president of the Academy, discusses this subject in some
detail. He says in part:

To support his [Silliman’s] undertaking, a vote had been passed in February [1818], “that the
Committee of Publication may allow such of the Academy’s papers as they think proper, to be
published in Mr. Silliman’s Scientific Journal.”
Free use was made of this authority, and a large part of the contents of the Journal was for many
years drawn from this source. In some cases this fact was noted in publication;[2] but in most it was
not....
In 1826, when the Journal was in great need of financial support, the Academy further voted to pay
for a year the cost of printing such of its papers as might be published in it. In Baldwin’s Annals of
Yale College, published in 1831, it is described as a publication “honorable to the science of our
common country,” and having “an additional value as being adopted as the acknowledged organ of
the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences.”

Many active campaigns were carried on over the country through paid
agents to obtain new subscribers for the Journal and it was doubtless due to
these efforts that the nominal subscription list was, at times, as already
noted, relatively large as compared with that of a later date. The new
subscribers in many cases, however, did not remain permanently interested,
often failed to pay their bills, and the uncertain and varying demand upon
the supply of printed copies was doubtless one reason why many single
numbers became early out of print.
An interesting sidelight is thrown upon the efforts of Silliman to interest
the public in his work, at its beginning, by a letter to the editor from
Thomas Jefferson, then seventy-five years of age. The writer is indebted to
Mr. Robert B. Adam of Buffalo for a copy of this letter and its interest
justifies its being reproduced here entire. The letter is as follows:

Monticello, Apr. 11. ’18.

Sir

The unlucky displacement of your letter of Mar 3 has been the cause of delay in my answer. altho’
I have very generally withdrawn from subscribing to or reading periodical publications from the love
of rest which age produces, yet I willingly subscribe to the journal you propose from a confidence
that the talent with which it will be edited will entitle it to attention among the things of select
reading for which alone I have time now left. be so good as to send it by mail, and the receipt of the
1st number will be considered as announcing that the work is commenced and the subscription
money for a year shall be forwarded. Accept the assurance of my great esteem and respect.
Th. Jefferson

Professor Silliman.

Contributors.—An interesting summary is also given by Silliman of the
contributors to the Journal and the extent of their work (vol. 50, pp. xii,
xiii); he says:

We find that there have been about 600 contributors of original matter to the Journal, and we have
the unexpected satisfaction of believing that probably five-sixths of them are still living; for we are
not certain that more than fifty are among the dead; of perhaps fifty more we are without information,
and if that additional number is to be enrolled among the “stelligeri,” we have still 500 remaining.
Among them are not a few of the veterans with whom we began our career, and several of these are
still active contributors. Shall we then conclude that the peaceful pursuits of knowledge are favorable
to long life? This we think is, cœteris paribus, certainly true: but in the present instance, another
reason can be assigned for the large amount of survivorship. As the Journal has advanced and death
has removed its scientific contributors, younger men and men still younger, have recruited the ranks,
and volunteers have enlisted in numbers constantly increasing, so that the flower of the host are now
in the morning and meridian of life.
We have been constantly advancing, like a traveller from the equinoctial towards the colder zones,
—as we have increased our latitude, stars have set and new stars have risen, while a few planetary
orbs visible in every zone, have continued to cheer us on our course.
The number of articles, almost exclusively original, contained in the Journal is about 1800, and the
Index will show how many have been contributed by each individual; we have doubtless included in
this number some few articles republished from foreign Journals—but we think they are even more
than counterbalanced by original communications without a name and by editorial articles, both of
which have been generally omitted in the enumeration.
Of smaller articles and notices in the Miscellany, we have not made any enumeration, but they
evidently are more numerous than the regular articles, and we presume that they may amount to at
least 2500.
Of party, either in politics or religion, there is no trace in our work; of personalities there are none,
except those that relate to priority of claims or other rights of individuals. Of these vindications the
number is not great, and we could heartily have wished that there had been no occasion for any.

General Scope of Articles.—Many references will be found in the
chapters following which throw light upon the character and scope of the
papers published in the Journal, particularly in its early years; a few
additional statements here may, however, prove of interest.
One feature that is especially noticeable is the frequent publication of
articles planned to place before the readers of the Journal in full detail
subjects to which they might not otherwise have access. These are
sometimes translations; sometimes republications of articles that had
already appeared in English periodicals; again, they are exhaustive and
critical reviews of important memoirs or books. The value of this feature in
the early history of the Journal, when the distribution of scientific literature
had nothing of the thoroughness characteristic of recent years, is
sufficiently obvious.
It is also interesting to note the long articles of geological description and
others giving lists of mineral or botanical localities. Noteworthy, too, is the
attempt to keep abreast of occurring phenomena as in the many notes on
tornadoes and storms by Redfield, Loomis, etc.; on auroras at different
localities; on shooting stars by Herrick, Olmstead and others.
The wide range of topics treated of is quite in accordance with the plan of
the editor as given on an earlier page. Some notes, taken more or less at
random, may serve to illustrate this point. An extended and quite technical
discussion of “Musical Temperament” opens the first number (1, pp. 9–35)
and is concluded in the same volume (pp. 176–199). An article on
“Mystery” is given by Mark Hopkins, A.M., “late a tutor of Williams
College” (13, 217, 1828). There is an essay on “Gypsies” by J. Griscom
(from the Revue Encyclopédique) in volume 24 (pp. 342–345, 1833), while
some notes on American gypsies are added in vol. 26 (p. 189, 1834). The
“divining rod” is described at length in vol. 11 (pp. 201–212, 1826), but
without giving any comfort to the credulous; on the contrary the last
paragraph states that “the pretensions of diviners are worthless, etc.” A long
article by J. Finch on the forts of Boston harbour appeared in 1824 (8, 338–
348); the concluding paragraph seems worthy of quotation:

“Many centuries hence, if despotism without, or anarchy within, should cause the republican
institutions of America to fade, then these fortresses ought to be destroyed, because they would be a
constant reproach to the people; but until that period, they should be preserved as the noblest
monuments of liberty.”

The promise to include the fine arts is kept by the publication of various
papers, as of the Trumbull paintings (16, 163, 1829); also by a series of
articles on “architecture in the United States” (17, 99, 1830; 18, 218, 220,
1830) and others. Quite in another line is the paper by J. W. Gibbs (33, 324,
1838) on “Arabic words in English.” A number of related linguistic papers
by the same author are to be found in other volumes. Papers in pure
mathematics are also not infrequent, though now not considered as falling
within the field of the Journal.
Applied science takes a prominent place through all the volume of the
First Series. An interesting paper is that on Eli Whitney, containing an
account of the cotton gin; this is accompanied by an excellent portrait (21,
201–264, 1832). The steam engine and its application are repeatedly
discussed and in the early volumes brief accounts are given of the early
steamboats in use; for example, between Stockholm and St. Petersburg (2,
347, 1820); Trieste and Venice (4, 377, 1822); on the Swiss Lakes (6, 385,
1823). The voyage of the first Atlantic steamboat, the “Savannah,” which
crossed from Savannah to Liverpool in 1819, is described (38, 155, 1840);
mention is also made of the “first iron boat” (3, 371, 1821; 5, 396, 1822). A
number of interesting letters on “Steam Navigation” are given in vol. 35,
160, 162, 332, 333, 336; some of the suggestions seem very quaint, viewed
in the light of the experience of to-day.
A very early form of explosive engine is described at length by Samuel
Morey (11, 104, 1826); this is an article that deserves mention in these days
of gasolene motors. Even more interesting is the description by Charles
Griswold (2, 94, 1820) of the first submarine invented by David Bushnell
and used in the Revolutionary War in August, 1776. An account is also
given of a dirigible balloon that may be fairly regarded as the original
ancestor of the Zeppelin (see 11, 346, 1826). The whole subject of aërial
navigation is treated at length by H. Strait (25, pp. 25, 26, 1834) and the
expression of his hopes for the future deserve quotation:

“Conveyance by air can be easily rendered as safe as by water or land, and more cheap and speedy,
while the universal and uniform diffusion of the air over every portion of the earth, will render aërial
navigation preferable to any other. To carry it into effect, there needs only an immediate appeal on a
sufficiently large scale, to experiment; reason has done her part, when experiment does hers, nature
will not refuse to sanction the whole. Aërial navigation will present the works of nature in all their
charms; to commerce and the diffusion of knowledge, it will bring the most efficient aid, and it can
thus be rendered serviceable to the whole human family.”

A subject of quite another character is the first discussion of the
properties of chloroform (chloric ether) and its use as an anæsthetic
(Guthrie, 21, 64, 405, 1832; 22, 105, 1832; Levi Ives, 21, 406). Further
interesting communications are given of the first analyses of the gastric
juice and the part played by it in the process of digestion. Dr. William
Beaumont of St. Louis took advantage of a patient who through a gun-shot
wound was left with a permanent opening into his stomach through which
the gastric juice could be drawn off. The results of Dr. Beaumont and of
Professor Robley Dunglison, to whom samples were submitted, are given in
full in the life of Beaumont by Jesse S. Myer (St. Louis, 1912). The interest
of the matter, so far as the Journal is concerned, is chiefly because Dr.
Beaumont selected Professor Silliman as a chemist to whom samples for
examination were also submitted. An account of Silliman’s results is given
in the Beaumont volume referred to (see also 26, 193, 1834). Desiring the
support of a chemist of wider experience in organic analysis, he also sent a
sample through the Swedish consul to Berzelius in Stockholm. After some
months the sample was received and it is interesting to note in a perfectly
fresh condition; it is to be regretted, however, that the Swedish chemist
failed to add anything to the results already obtained in this country (27,
40b, 1835).
The above list, which might be greatly extended, seems to leave little
ground for the implied criticism replied to by Silliman as follows (16, p. v,
1829):

A celebrated scholar, while himself an editor, advised me, in a letter, to introduce into this Journal
as much “readable” matter as possible: and there was, pretty early, an earnest but respectful
recommendation in a Philadelphia paper, that Literature, in imitation of the London Quarterly Journal
of Science, &c. should be in form, inscribed among the titles of the work.

The Second, Third and Fourth Series.

The Second Series of the Journal, as already stated, began with January,
1846. Up to this time the publication had been a quarterly or two volumes
annually of two numbers each. From 1846 until the completion of an
additional fifty volumes in 1871, the Journal was made a bimonthly, each of
the two yearly volumes having three numbers each. Furthermore, a general
index was given for each period of five years, that is for every ten volumes.

Much more important than this change was the addition to the editorial
staff of James Dwight Dana, Silliman’s son-in-law. Dana returned from the
four-years cruise of the Wilkes Exploring Expedition in 1842; he settled in
New Haven, was married in 1844, and in 1850 was appointed Silliman
professor of Geology in Yale College. He was at this time actively engaged
in writing his three quarto reports for the Expedition and hence did not
begin his active professional duties in Yale College until 1856. Part of his
inaugural address was quoted on an earlier page.

Dana had already performed the severe labor of preparing the complete
index to the First Series, a volume of about 350 pages, finally issued in
1847. From the beginning of the Second Series he was closely associated
with his brother-in-law, the younger Silliman. Later the editorial labor
devolved more and more upon him and the larger part of this he carried
until about 1890. His work, was, however, somewhat interrupted during
periods of ill health. This was conspicuously true during a year’s absence in
Europe in 1859–60, made necessary in the search for health; during these
periods the editorial responsibility rested entirely upon the younger
Silliman. Of Dana’s contributions to science in general this is not the place
to speak, nor is the present writer the one to dwell in detail upon his work
for the Journal. This subject is to such an extent involved in the history of
geology and zoology, the subjects of several succeeding chapters, that it is
adequately presented in them.
It may, however, be worth stating that in the bibliography accompanying
the obituary notice of Dana (49, 329–356, 1895) some 250 titles of articles
in the Journal are enumerated; these aggregate approximately 2800 pages.
The number of critical notes, abstracts, book reviews, etc., could be also
given, were it worth while, but what is much more significant in this
connection, than their number or aggregate length, is the fact that these
notices are in a large number of cases—like those of Gray in botany—
minutely critical and original in matter. They thus give the writer’s own
opinion on a multitude of different subjects. It was a great benefit to Dana,
as it was to science also, that he had this prompt means at hand of putting
before the public the results of his active brain, which continued to work
unceasingly even in times of health prostration.
This may be the most convenient place to add that as Dana became
gradually less able to carry the burden of the details involved in editing the
Journal in addition to his more important scientific labors, particularly from
1890 on, this work devolved more and more upon his son, the present
editor, whose name was added to the editorial staff in 1875, with volume 9,
of the Third Series. The latter has served continuously until the present
time, with the exception of absences, due to ill health, in 1893–94 and in
1903; during the first of these Professor Henry S. Williams and during the
second Professor H. E. Gregory occupied the editorial chair.

The Third Series began in 1871, after the completion of the one-
hundredth volume from the beginning in 1818. At this date the Journal was
made a monthly and as such it remains to-day. Fifty volumes again
completed this series, which closed in 1895.
The Fourth Series began with January, 1896, and the present number for
July, 1918, is the opening one of the forty-sixth volume or, in other words,
—the one hundred and ninety-sixth volume of the entire issue since 1818.
The Fourth Series, according to the precedent established, will end with
1920.

Associate Editors.—In 1851 the new policy was introduced of adding
“Associate Editors” to the staff. The first of these was Dr. Wolcott Gibbs of
Cambridge. He began his duties with the eleventh volume of the Second
Series in 1851 and continued them with unceasing care and thoroughness
for more than twenty years. In a note dated Jan. 1, 1851 (11, 105), he says:

It is my intention in future to prepare for the columns of this Journal abstracts of the more
important physical and chemical memoirs contained in foreign scientific journals, accompanied by
references, and by such critical observations as the occasion may demand. Contributions of a similar
character from others will of course not be excluded by this arrangement, but I shall hold myself
responsible only for those notices which appear over my initials.

The departments covered by Dr. Gibbs, in his excellent monthly
contributions, embraced chemistry and physics, and these subjects were
carried together until 1873 when they were separated and the physical notes
were furnished, first by Alfred M. Mayer and later successively by E. C.
Pickering (from 1874), J. P. Cooke (from 1877), and John Trowbridge (from
1880). The first instalment of the long series of notes in chemistry and
chemical physics by George F. Barker was printed in volume 50, 1870. He
came in at first to occasionally relieve Dr. Gibbs, but soon took the entire
responsibility. His name was placed among the associate editors on the
cover in 1877 and two years later Dr. Gibbs formally retired. It may be
added that from the beginning in 1851 to the present time, the notes in
“Chemistry and Physics” have been continued almost without interruption.
The other departments of science have been also fully represented in the
notes, abstracts of papers published, book notices, etc., of the successive

numbers, but as with the chemistry and physics the subject of botany was
long treated in a similar formal manner. For the notes in this department, the
Journal was for many years indebted to Dr. Asa Gray, who became
associate editor in 1853, two years after Gibbs, although he had been a not
infrequent contributor for many years previously. Gray’s contributions were
furnished with great regularity and were always critical and original in
matter. They formed indeed one of the most valuable features of the Journal
for many years; as botanists well appreciate, and, as Professor Goodale has
emphasized in his chapter on botany, Gray’s notes are of vital importance in
the history of the development of his subject. With Gray’s retirement from
active duty, his colleague, George W. Goodale, took up the work in 1888
and in 1895 William G. Farlow, also of Cambridge, was added as an
associate editor in cryptogamic botany. At this time, however, and indeed
earlier, the sphere of the Journal had unavoidably contracted and botany
perforce ceased to occupy the prominent place it had long done in the
Journal pages.
This is not the place to present an appreciation of the truly magnificent
work of Asa Gray. It may not be out of place, however, to call attention to
the notice of Gray written for the Journal by his life-long friend, James D.
Dana (35, 181, 1888). The opening paragraph is as follows:

“Our friend and associate, Asa Gray, the eminent botanist of America, the broad-minded student of
nature, ended his life of unceasing and fruitful work on the 30th of January last. For thirty-five years
he has been one of the editors of this Journal, and for more than fifty years one of its contributors;
and through all his communications there is seen the profound and always delighted student, the
accomplished writer, the just and genial critic, and as Darwin has well said, ‘The lovable man.’”

The third associate editor, following Gray, was Louis Agassiz, whose
work for science, particularly in his adopted home in this country, calls for
no praise here. His term of service extended from 1853 to 1866 and,
particularly in the earlier years, his contributions were numerous and
important. The next gentleman in the list was Waldo I. Burnett, of Boston,
who served one year only, and then followed four of Dana’s colleagues in
New Haven, of whose generosity and able assistance it would be impossible
to say too much. These gentlemen were Brush in mineralogy; Johnson in
chemistry, particularly on the agricultural side; Newton in mathematics and

astronomy, whose contributions will be spoken of elsewhere; and Verrill—a
student of Agassiz—in zoology.
All of these gentlemen, besides their frequent and important original
articles, were ever ready not only to give needed advice, but also, to furnish
brief communications, abstracts of papers and book reviews, and otherwise
to aid in the work. Verrill particularly furnished the Journal a long list of
original and important papers, chiefly in systematic zoology, extending
from 1865 almost down to the present year. His abstracts and book notices
also were numerous and trenchant and it is not too much to say that without
him the Journal never could have filled the place in zoology which it so
long held. Much later the list of New Haven men was increased by the
addition of Henry S. Williams (1894), and O. C. Marsh (1895).

Of the valuable work of those more or less closely associated in the
conduct of the Journal at the present time, it would not be appropriate to
speak in detail. It must suffice to say that the services rendered freely by
them have been invaluable, and to their aid is due a large part of the success
of the Journal, especially since the Fourth Series began in 1896. But even
this statement is inadequate, for the editor-in-chief has had the generous
assistance of other gentlemen, whose names have not been placed on the
title page, and who have also played an important part in the conduct of the
Journal. This policy, indeed, is not a matter of recent date. Very early in the
First Series, Professor Griscom of Paris, as already noted, furnished notes

of interesting scientific discoveries abroad. Other gentlemen have from time
to time acted in the same capacity. The most prominent of them was
Professor Jerome Nicklès of Nancy, France, who regularly furnished a
series of valuable notes on varied subjects, chiefly from foreign sources,
extending from 1852 to 1869. On the latter date he met an untimely death in
his laboratory in connection with experiments upon hydrofluoric acid (47,
434, 1869).
It may be added, further, that one of the striking features about the
Journal, especially in the earlier half century of its existence, is the personal
nature of many of its contributions, which were very frequently in the form
of letters written to Benjamin Silliman or J. D. Dana. This is perhaps but
another reflection of the extent to which the growth of the magazine
centered around these two men, whose wide acquaintance and broad
scientific repute made of the Journal a natural place to record the new and
interesting things that were being discovered in science.
The following list gives the names and dates of service, as recorded on
the Journal title pages, of the gentlemen formally made Associate Editors:

Wolcott Gibbs (2) 11, 1851 to (3) 18, 1879
Asa Gray „ 15, 1853 „ „ 34, 1887
Louis Agassiz „ 16, 1853 „ (2) 41, 1866
Waldo I. Burnett „ 16, 1853 „ „ 17, 1853
George J. Brush „ 35, 1863 „ (3) 18, 1879
Samuel W. Johnson „ 35, 1863 „ „ 18, 1879
Hubert A. Newton (2) 38, 1864 to (4) 1, 1896
Addison E. Verrill „ 47, 1869
Alfred M. Mayer (3) 5, 1873 to (3) 6, 1873
Edward C. Pickering „ 7, 1874 „ „ 13, 1877
George F. Barker „ 14, 1877 „ (4) 29, 1910
Josiah P. Cooke „ 14, 1877 „ (3) 47, 1894
John Trowbridge (3) 19, 1880
George W. Goodale „ 35, 1888
Henry S. Williams „ 47, 1894
Henry P. Bowditch „ 49, 1895 to (4) 8, 1899
William G. Farlow „ 49, 1895
Othniel C. Marsh „ 49, 1895 to (4) 6, 1899
Henry A. Rowland (4) 1, 1896 „ „ 10, 1900
Joseph S. Diller „ 1, 1896
Louis V. Pirsson „ 7, 1899
William M. Davis „ 9, 1900
Joseph S. Ames „ 12, 1901
Horace L. Wells „ 18, 1904
Herbert E. Gregory „ 18, 1904
Horace S. Uhler „ 33, 1912

Present and Future Conditions.

The field to be occupied by the “American Journal of Science and Arts,”
as seen by its founder in 1818 and presented by him in the first number, as
quoted entire on an earlier page, was as broad as the entire sphere of science
itself. It thus included all the departments of both pure and applied science
and extended even to music and fine arts also. As the years went by,
however, and the practical applications of science greatly increased,
technical journals started up, and the necessity of cultivating this constantly
expanding field diminished. It was not, however, until January, 1880, that
“the Arts” ceased to be a part of the name by which the Journal was known.
About the same date also—or better a little earlier—began an increasing
development of scientific research, particularly as fostered by the graduate
schools of our prominent universities. The full presentation of this subject
would require much space and is indeed unnecessary as the main facts must
be distinct in the mind of the reader. It is only right, however, that the large
part played in this movement by the Johns Hopkins University (founded in
1876) should be mentioned here.
As a result of this movement, which has been of great benefit in
stimulating the growth of science in the country, many new journals of
specialized character have come into existence from time to time. Further
localization and specialization of scientific publication have resulted from
the increased activity of scientific societies and academies at numerous
centers and the springing into existence thereby of new organs of
publication through them, as also through certain of the Government
Departments, the Carnegie Institution, and certain universities and
museums.
As bearing upon this subject, the following list of the more prominent
scientific periodicals started in this country since 1867 is not without
interest:

1867– . American Naturalist.
1875– . Botanical Bulletin; later Botanical Gazette.
1879–1913. American Chemical Journal.

1880–1915. School of Mines Quarterly.
1883– . Science.
1885– . Journal of Heredity.
1887– . Journal of Morphology.
1887–1908. Technology Quarterly.
1888–1905. American Geologist.
1891– . Journal of Comparative Neurology.
1893– . Journal of Geology.
1893– . Physical Review.
1895– . Astrophysical Journal.
1896– . Journal of Physical Chemistry.
1896– . Terrestrial Magnetism.
1897–1899. Zoological Bulletin; followed by
1900– . Biological Bulletin.
1901– . American Journal of Anatomy.
1904– . Journal of Experimental Zoology.
1905– . Economic Geology.
1906– . Anatomical Record.
1907– . Journal of Economic Entomology.
1911– . Journal of Animal Behavior.
1914– . American Journal of Botany.
1916– . Genetics.
1918– . American Journal of Physical Anthropology.
The result of the whole movement has been of necessity to narrow, little
by little, the sphere of a general scientific periodical such as the Journal has
been from the beginning. The exact change might be studied in detail by
tabulating as to subjects the contents of successive volumes, decade by

decade, from 1870 down. It is sufficient, here, however, to recognize the
general fact that while the number of original papers published in the
periodicals of this country, in 1910, for example, was very many times what
it was in 1825, a large part of these have naturally found their home in
periodicals devoted to the special subject dealt with in each case. That this
movement will continue, though in lessened degree now that the immediate
demand is measurably satisfied, is to be expected. At the same time it has
not seemed wise, at any time in the past, to formally restrict the pages of the
Journal to any single group of subjects. The future is before us and its
problems will be met as they arise. At the moment, however, there seems to
be still a place for a scientific monthly sufficiently broad to include original
papers of important general bearing even if special in immediate subject. In
this way it would seem that “Silliman’s Journal” can best continue to meet
the ideals of its honored founder, modified as they must be to meet the
change of conditions which a century of scientific investigation and growth
have wrought. Incidentally it is not out of place to add that a self-
supporting, non-subsidized scientific periodical may hope to find a larger
number of subscribers from among the workers in science and the libraries
if it is not too restricted in scope.
The last subject touched upon introduces the essential matter of financial
support without which no monthly publication can survive. With respect to
the periodicals of recent birth, listed above, it is safe to say that some form
of substantial support or subsidy—often very generous—is the rule, perhaps
the universal one. This has never been the case with the American Journal.
The liberality and broad-minded attitude of Yale College in the early days,
and of the Yale University that has developed from it, have never been
questioned. At the same time the special conditions have been such as to
make it desirable that the responsibility of meeting the financial
requirements should be carried by the editors-in-chief. At present the Yale
Library gives adequate payment for certain publications received by the
Journal in exchange, though for many years they were given to it as a
matter of course, free of charge. Beyond this there is nothing approaching a
subsidy.
The difficulties on the financial side met with by the elder Silliman have
been suggested, although not adequately presented, in the various
statements quoted from early volumes. The same problems in varying
degree have continued for the past sixty years. Since 1914 they have been

seriously aggravated for reasons that need not be enlarged upon. Prior to
that date the subscription list had, for reasons chiefly involved in the
development of special journals, been much smaller than the number
estimated by Silliman, for example, in volume 50 (p. xiv), although there
has been this partial compensation that the considerable number of well-
established libraries on the subscription list has meant a greater degree of
stability and a smaller proportion of bad accounts. The past four years,
however, the Journal, with all similar undertakings here and elsewhere, has
been compelled to bear its share of the burden of the world war in
diminished receipts and greatly increased expenses. It is gratifying to be
able to acknowledge here the generosity of the authors, or of the
laboratories with which they have been connected, in their willingness not
infrequently to give assistance, for example, in the payment of more or less
of the cost of engravings, or in a few special cases a large portion of the
total cost of publication. In this way the problem of ways and means,
constantly before the editor who bears the sole responsibility, has been
simplified.
It should also be stated that as those immediately interested have looked
forward to the present anniversary, it has been with the hope that this
occasion might be an appropriate one for the establishment of a “Silliman
Fund” to commemorate the life and work of Benjamin Silliman. The
income of such a fund would lift from the University the burden that must
unavoidably fall upon it when the responsibility for the conduct of the
Journal can no longer be carried by members of the family including the
editor and—as in years long past—a silent partner whose aid on the
business side has been essential to the efficiency and economy of the
enterprise. Present conditions are not favorable for such a movement,
although something has been already accomplished in the desired direction.
At the present time every patriotic citizen must feel it his first duty to give
his savings as well as his spare income to the support of the National
Government in the world struggle for freedom in which it is taking part.
But, whatever the exact condition of the future may be, it cannot be
questioned that the Journal founded by Benjamin Silliman in 1818 will
survive and will continue to play a vital part in the support and further
development of science.
The present year of 1918 finds the world at large, and with it the world of
science, painfully crushed beneath the overwhelming weight of a world war

of unprecedented severity. The four terrible years now nearly finished have
seen a fearful destruction of life and property which must have a sad
influence on the progress of science for many years to come. Only in
certain restricted lines has there been a partial compensation in the
stimulating influence due to the immediate necessities connected with the
great conflict. One hundred years ago “the reign of war” was keenly in the
mind of the editor in beginning his work, but for him, happily, the long
period of the Napoleonic wars was already in the past, as also the brief
conflict of 1812, in which this country was engaged and in which Silliman
himself played a minor part. We, too, must believe, no matter how serious
the outlook of the present moment, that a fundamental change will come in
the not distant future; the nations of the world must sooner or later turn
once more to peaceful pursuits and the scientific men of different races
must become again not enemies but brothers engaged in the common cause
of uplifting human life. The peace that we look forward to to-day is not for
this country alone, but a peace which shall be a permanent blessing to the
entire world for ages to come.

Note.—The portrait which forms the frontispiece of this volume has
been reproduced from the plate in volume 50 (1847). The original painting
was made by H. Willard in 1835, when Silliman was in Boston engaged in
delivering the Lowell lectures; he was then nearly fifty-six years of age.
The engraving, as he states elsewhere, was made from this painting for the
Yale Literary Magazine, and was published in the number for December,
1839.
It is interesting to quote the remarks with which the editor introduces the
portrait (50, xviii, 1847). He says:

The portrait prefixed to this volume was engraved for a very different purpose and for others than
the patrons of this Journal. It has been suggested by friends, whose judgment we are accustomed to
respect, that it ought to find a place here, since it is regarded as an authentic, although, perhaps, a
rather austere resemblance. In yielding to this suggestion, it may be sufficient to quote the sentiment
of Cowper on a similar occasion, who remarked—“that after a man has, for many years, turned his
mind inside out before the world, it is only affectation to attempt to hide his face.”

Notes.
1. The statements given are necessarily much condensed, without an attempt to follow all
changes of title; furthermore, the dates of actual publication for the academies given above are often
somewhat vaguely recorded. For fuller information see Scudder’s “Catalogue of Scientific Serials,
1633–1876,” Cambridge, 1876; also H. Carrington Bolton’s “Catalogue of Scientific and Technical
Periodicals, 1665–1882” (Smithsonian Institution, 1885). The writer is much indebted to Mr. C. J.
Barr, Assistant Librarian of Yale University Library, for his valuable assistance in this connection.

2. The following footnote accompanies the opening article of the first volume of the Journal.
“From the MS. papers of the Connecticut Academy, now published by permission.” Similar notes
appear elsewhere. Ed.

II
A CENTURY OF GEOLOGY.—THE PROGRESS OF
HISTORICAL GEOLOGY IN NORTH AMERICA

By CHARLES SCHUCHERT

Introduction.

The American Journal of Science, “one of the greatest influences in
American geology,” founded in 1818, has published a little more than
92,000 pages of scientific matter. Of geology, including mineralogy, there
appear to be upward of 20,000 pages. What a vast treasure house of
geologic knowledge is stored in these 194 volumes, and how well the
editors have lived up to their proposed “plan of work” as stated in the
opening volume, where Silliman says: “It is designed as a deposit for
original American communications” in “the physical sciences ... and
especially our mineralogy and geology” (1, v, 1818)! Not only is it the
oldest continuously published scientific journal of this country, but it has
proved itself to be “perhaps the most important geological periodical in
America” (Merrill). It is impossible to adequately present in this memorial
volume of the Journal the contents of the articles on the geological sciences.
Editor Silliman was not only the founder of the Journal, but the
generating center for the making of geologists and promoting geology
during the rise of this science in America. For nearly three decades, the
workers came to him for counsel and help, and he had a kind paternal word
for them all. This influence is also shown in the many letters which were
addressed to him, and which he published in the Journal. A similar

influence, paternal care, and constructive criticism were continued by James
D. Dana, and especially in his earlier career as editor.
Not including mineralogy, there are in the Journal upward of 1500
distinct articles on geology. Of these, over 400 are on vertebrate
paleontology, about 325 on invertebrate paleontology, and 90 on
paleobotany. Of articles bearing on historical geology there are about 160,
and on stratigraphic geology more than 360. In addition to all this, there are
more than 2000 pages of geologic matter relating to books and of letters
communicated to the editors Silliman and Dana. We may summarize with
Doctor Merrill’s statement in his well-known Contributions to the History
of American Geology:

“From its earliest inception geological notes and papers occupied a prominent place in its pages,
and a perusal of the numbers from the date of issue down to the present time will, alone, afford a fair
idea of the gradual progress of American geology.”

Before presenting a synopsis of the more important steps in the progress
of historical geology in America, it will be well to introduce a rapid survey
of the rise of geology in Europe, for, after all, American geology grew out
of that of England, France and Germany. This dependence was
conspicuously true during the first four decades of the previous century.
With the rise of the first New York State Survey (1836–1843) and that of
Pennsylvania (1836–1844, 1858), American geology became more or less
independent of Europe. Finally, this article will conclude with a survey of
the rise of paleometeorology, paleogeography, evolution, and invertebrate
paleontology.

The Rise of Geology in Europe.

Mineral Geology.—The geological sciences had their rise in the study of
minerals as carried on by the German chemist and physician George Bauer
(1494–1555), better known as Agricola. Bauer originated the critical study
of minerals, but did not distinguish his “fossilia,” the remains of organisms,
from the inorganic crystal forms. Mineral geology endured until the close of
the eighteenth century.
Cosmogonists.—Then came the expounders of the earth’s origin, the
cosmogonists of the sixteenth to the end of the eighteenth centuries. The
fashion of this time was to write histories of the earth derived out of the
imagination.
Earliest Historical Geology.—Even though Giovanni Arduino (1713–
1795) of Padua was not the first to classify the rocks into three series
according to their age, he did this more clearly than any one else before his
time. The rocks about Verona he grouped in 1759 into Primary, Secondary,
Tertiary, and Volcanic. This three-fold classification came into general use,
though modified with time.
Early in the nineteenth century it had become plain that formations of
very varying ages were included in each one of the three series. Through the
study of the fossils and the recognition of the fact that mountain ranges
have been raised at various times, causing younger fossiliferous strata to
take on the characters of the Primary, it was seen that these terms of
Arduino had lost their original significance.
The first one to describe in detail a local stratigraphic sequence was
Johann Gottlob Lehmann (died 1767). In 1756 he published “one of the
classics of geological literature,” distinguishing clearly thirty successive
sedimentary deposits, some of which he said had fossils, but he did not use
them to distinguish the strata.
What Lehmann did for the Permian system, George Christian Füchsel
(1722–1773) did even better for the Triassic of Thuringia, in 1762 and
1773. He pointed out not only the sequence, but also how the gently
inclined strata rest upon the older upturned masses of the mountains; also
that some formations have only marine fossils, while others have only

terrestrial forms and thus indicate the proximity of land. The deformed
strata he thought had fallen into the hollows within the earth, great caverns
that had also consumed much of the oceanic waters and had in so doing
greatly lowered the sea-level. It was Füchsel who first introduced the theory
of universal formations, and who defined the term formation, using it as we
now do, system or period. Even though Lehmann and Füchsel showed that
there was a definite order and process in the formation of the earth’s crust,
their example was barren of followers until the beginning of the eighteenth
century.
Wernerian Geology or Geognosy.—We come now to the time of
Abraham Gottlob Werner (1749–1817), who from 1775 to 1817 was
professor of mining and mineralogy in the Freiberg Academy of Mines.
Geikie, in his most interesting Founders of Geology, says that Werner
“bulks far more largely in the history of geology than any of those with
whom up to the present we have been concerned—a man who wielded an
enormous authority over the mineralogy and geology of his day.”
“Although he did great service by the precision of his lithological characters
and by his insistence on the doctrine of geological succession, yet as
regards geological theory, whether directly by his own teaching, or
indirectly by the labors of his pupils and followers, much of his influence
was disastrous to the higher interests of geology.”
Werner arranged the crust of the earth into a series of formations, as had
been done previously by Lehmann and Füchsel, and one of his fundamental
postulates was that all rocks were chemically precipitated in the ocean as
“universal formations.” For this reason Werner’s school were called the
Neptunists. Nowhere, however, did he explain how and where the deep and
primitive ocean had disappeared.
According to Werner, the first formed or oldest rocks were the chemically
deposited Primitive strata, including granite and other igneous and
metamorphic rocks. On these followed the Transition rocks, the earliest
sediments of mechanical origin, and above them the Floetz rocks, a term for
the horizontal stratified rocks. These last he said were partly of chemical
but chiefly of mechanical origin. Last of all came the Alluvial series.
The existence of volcanoes had been pointed out long before Werner’s
time by the Italian school of geologists, but as for “the universality and
potency of what is now termed igneous action,” all was “brushed aside by

the oracle of Freiberg.” Reactions between the interior and exterior of our
earth “were utterly antagonistic to Werner’s conception of the structure and
history of the earth.” To him, volcanoes were “burning mountains” that
arose from the combustion of subterranean beds of coal, spontaneously
ignited.
The breaking down of the Wernerian doctrines began with two of
Werner’s most distinguished pupils, D’Aubuisson de Voisins (1769–1819)
and Von Buch. The former in 1803 had accepted Werner’s aqueous origin of
basalt, but after studying the celebrated and quite recent volcanic area of
Auvergne he recanted in 1804. Here he saw the basaltic rocks lying upon
and cutting through granite, and in places more than 1200 feet thick. “If
these basaltic rocks were lavas,” says Geikie, “they must, according to the
Wernerian doctrine, have resulted from the combustion of beds of coal. But
how could coal be supposed to exist under granite, which was the first
chemical precipitate of a primeval ocean?”
Leopold von Buch (1774–1853), “the most illustrious geologist that
Germany has produced,” after two years spent in Norway was satisfied
“that the rocks in the Christiania district could not be arranged according to
the Wernerian plan, which there completely broke down. Von Buch found a
mass of granite lying among fossiliferous limestones which were manifestly
metamorphosed, and were pierced by veins of granite, porphyry, and
syenite.” Even so, he was not ready to abandon the teachings of his master.
After a study of the mountain systems of Germany, however, “he declared
that the more elevated mountains had never been covered by the sea, as
Werner had taught, but were produced by successive ruptures and uplifts of
the terrestrial crust” (Geikie).
Rise of Geology and Conformism.—Modern geology has its rise in James
Hutton (1726–1797) of Edinburgh, Scotland. In 1785 and 1795, Hutton
published his Theory of the Earth, with Proofs and Illustrations. His
“immortal theory” is his only work on geology. “Fortunately for Hutton’s
fame and for the onward march of geology, the philosopher numbered
among his friends the illustrious mathematician and natural philosopher,
John Playfair (1748–1819), who had been closely associated with him in his
later years, and was intimately conversant with his geological opinions.” In
1802, Playfair published his Illustrations of the Huttonian Theory of the

Earth, of which Geikie says, “Of this great classic it is impossible to speak
too highly,” as it is at the basis of all modern geology.
One of Hutton’s fundamental doctrines is that the earth is internally hot
and that in the past large masses of molten material, the granites, have been
intruded into the crust. It was these igneous views that led to his followers
being called the Plutonists. Another of his great doctrines was that “the
ruins of an earlier world lie beneath the secondary strata,” and that they are
separated by what is now known as unconformity. He clearly recognized a
lost interval in the broken relation of the structures, and that the ruins, the
detrital materials, of one world after another are superposed in the structure
of the earth.
Hutton also held that the deformation of once horizontally deposited
strata was probably brought about at different periods by great convulsions
that shook the very foundations of the earth. After a convulsion, there was a
long time of erosion, represented by the unconformity. Geikie says, “The
whole of the modern doctrine of earth sculpture is to be found in the
Huttonian theory.”
The Lyellian doctrine of metamorphism had its origin in Hutton, for he
showed that invading igneous granite had altered, through its heat and
expanding power, the originally waterlaid sediments, and that the schists of
the Alps had been born of the sea like other stratified rocks.
Hutton is the father of the Uniformitarian principle, for he “started with
the grand conception that the past history of our globe must be explained by
what can be seen to be happening now, or to have happened only recently.
The dominant idea in his philosophy is that the present is the key to the
past.” This principle has been impressed on all later geologists by Sir
Charles Lyell, and is the chief cornerstone of modern geology.
The principle of uniformitarianism has underlain geologic interpretation
since the days of Hutton, Playfair, and Lyell. However, it is often applied
too rigidly in interpretations based upon the present conditions, because in
the past there were long times when the topographic features of the earth
were very different from those of to-day. Throughout the Paleozoic, and,
less markedly, the Mesozoic, the oceans flooded the lands widely (at times
over 60 per cent of the total area), highlands were inconspicuous, sediments
far scarcer, and climates warm and equable throughout the world. Highland
conditions, and especially the broadly emergent continents of the present,

were only periodically present in the Paleozoic and then for comparatively
short intervals between the periods. Therefore rates of denudation, solution,
sedimentation, and evolution have varied greatly throughout the geological
ages. These differences, however, relate to degrees of operation, and not to
kinds of processes; but the differences in degree of operation react mightily
on our views as to the age of the earth.
Geologic time had, for Hutton, no “vestige of a beginning, no prospect of
an end.” In other words, geologic time is infinite. He did not, however,
discover a method by which the chronology of the earth could be
determined.
First Important Text-books.—In 1822 appeared the ablest text-book so
far published, and the pattern for most of the later ones, Outlines of the
Geology of England and Wales, by W. D. Conybeare (1787–1857) and W.
Phillips (1775–1828). “In this excellent volume all that was then known
regarding the rocks of the country, from the youngest formations down to
the Old Red Sandstone, was summarized in so clear and methodical a
manner as to give a powerful impulse to the cultivation of geology in
England” (Geikie). This book is reviewed at great length by Edward
Hitchcock in the Journal (7, 203, 1824).
To indicate how far historical geology had progressed up to 1822 in
England, a digest of the geological column as presented in this text-book is
given in the following table, along with other information.
A text-book writer of yet greater influence was Charles Lyell (1797–
1875), whose Principles of Geology appeared in three volumes between
1830 and 1833. This and his other books were kept up to date through many
editions, and his Elements of Geology is, as Geikie says, “the hand book of
every English geologist” working with the fossiliferous formations.

The Rise of Geology in North America.
The Generating Centers.—In America, geology had its rise
independently in three places: in the two scientific societies of Boston and
Philadelphia, and dominantly in Benjamin Silliman of Yale College. Stated
in another way, we may say that geology in America had its origin in the
following pioneers and founders: first, in William Maclure at Philadelphia,
and next in Benjamin Silliman at New Haven. Through the influence of the
latter, Amos Eaton, the botanist, became a geologist and taught geology at
Williams College and later at the Rensselaer School in Troy, New York.
Through the same influence Rev. Edward Hitchcock also became a
geologist and taught the subject after 1825 at Amherst College.
Silliman was the first to take up actively the teaching of mineralogy and
geology based on collections of specimens. He spread the knowledge in
popular lectures throughout the Eastern States, graduated many a student in
the sciences, making of some of them professional teachers and geologists,
provided all with a journal wherein they could publish their research,
organized the first geological society and through his students the first
official geological surveys, and by kind words and acts stimulated, fostered,
and held together American scientific men for fifty years. Of him it has
been truly said that he was “the guardian of American science from its
childhood.”
The American Academy in Boston.—The second oldest scientific society,
but the first one to publish on geological subjects, was the American
Academy of Arts and Sciences of Boston, instituted and publishing since
1780. Up to the time of the founding of this Journal, there had appeared in
the publications of the American Academy about a dozen papers of a
geologic character, none of which need to be mentioned here excepting one
by S. L. and J. F. Dana, entitled “Outlines of the Mineralogy and Geology
of Boston,” published in 1818. This is an early and important step in the
elucidation of one of the most intricate geologic areas, and is further
noteworthy for its geologic map, the third one to appear, the older ones
being by Maclure and Hitchcock (Merrill).

The Geological Column in 1822
Present American classification Conybeare and Phillips 1822 C. & P. orders Wernerian orders Other writers
Psychozoic or Recent Alluvial
Pleistocene Diluvial
Pliocene Upper Marine formation (Crag, Bagshot sand, and Isle of
Neogene
Miocene Wight) Superior Order Newest Floetz Class Tertiary Class
Cenozoic
Fresh-water formations
Oligocene London Clay
Paleogene
Eocene Plastic Clay
Cretaceous Chalk
Comanchian 1887 Beds between Chalk and Oolite Series (Chalk Marle,
Green Sand, Weald Clay, Iron Sand)
Upper Oolitic division (Purbeck beds, Portland Oolite,
Kimmeridge Clay)
Mesozoic Middle Oolitic division (Coral Rag, Oxford Clay)
Jurassic 1829 Supermedial Order
Lower Oolitic division (Cornbrash Stonesfield Slate,
Forest Marble, Great Oolite, Fullers’ Earth, Inferior
Oolite, Sand and Marlestone)
Lias
Triassic 1834 New Red Sandstone
Permian 1841 Magnesian Limestone
Coal Measures
Pennsylvanian 1891 Medial or Primitive Transition Primitive Intermediate
Mississippian 1869 Millstone Grit and Shale Carboniferous and Floetz Classes and Secondary classes
Old Red Sandstone Order
Paleozoic
Devonian 1839
Silurian 1835
Ordovician 1879
(=Lower Silurian 1835)
Cambrian 1833
Keweenawan
Unresolved Submedial and Inferior Orders
Animikian Huronian
Proterozoic
Huronian 1852
Sudburian
Keewatin Laurentian
Archeozoic
Coutchiching 1853

Early Geology in Philadelphia.—The oldest scientific society is the
American Philosophical Society of Philadelphia, started by the many-sided
Benjamin Franklin in 1769, and which has published since 1771. Up to the
time of the founding of the Journal in 1818, there had appeared in the
publications of this society thirteen papers of a geologic nature, nearly all
small building stones in the rising geologic story of North America. The
only fundamental ones were Maclure’s Observations of 1809 and 1817.
Later, in this same city, there was organized another scientific society that
came to be for a long time the most active one in America. This was the
Academy of Natural Sciences, started in 1812 with seven members, but it
was not until 1817 and the election of William Maclure as its first president
that the work of the Academy was of a far-reaching character. Here was
built up not only a society for the advancement of the natural sciences and
publications for the dissemination of such knowledge, but, what is equally
important, the first large library and general museum.
William Maclure (1763–1840), correctly named by Silliman the “father
of American geology,” was born and educated in Scotland, and died near
Mexico City. A merchant of London until 1796, when he had already
amassed “a considerable fortune,” he made a first short visit to New York

City in 1782. In 1796 he again came to America, this time to become a
citizen of this country and a liberal patron of science.
About 1803, single-handed and unsustained by government patronage,
Maclure interested himself most zealously and efficiently in American
geology. In 1809 he published his Observations on the Geology of the
United States, Explanatory of a Geological Map. This work he revised “on a
yet more extended scale,” issuing it in 1817 with 130 pages of text,
accompanied by a large colored geological map.
Silliman, the Pioneer Promoter of Geology.—In 1806 when Benjamin
Silliman (1779–1864) began actively to teach chemistry and mineralogy, all
the sciences in America were in a very backward state, and the earth
sciences were not recognized as such in the curricula of any of our colleges.
Silliman gave his first lecture in chemistry on April 4, 1804. In the summer
of that year, Yale College asked him to go to England to purchase material
for the College, and great possibilities for broadening his knowledge now
loomed before him. As Silliman himself (43, 225, 1842) has told the
interesting story of his sojourn in England and Scotland, it is worth while to
restate a part of it here.

“Passing over to England in the spring of 1805, and fixing my residence for six months in London,
I found there no school, public or private, for geological instruction, and no association for the
cultivation of the science, which was not even named in the English universities.” In geology
“Edinburgh was then far in advance of London.... Prof. Jameson having recently returned from the
school of Werner, fully instructed in the doctrines of his illustrious teacher, was ardently engaged to
maintain them, and his eloquent and acute friend, the late Dr. John Murray, was a powerful auxiliary
in the same cause; both of these philosophers strenuously maintaining the ascendancy of the aqueous
over the igneous agencies, in the geological phenomena of our planet.
On the other hand, the disciples and friends of Dr. Hutton were not less active. He died in 1797,
and his mantle fell upon Sir James Hall, who, with Prof. Playfair and Prof. Thomas Hope, maintained
with signal ability, the igneous theory of Hutton. It did not become one who was still a youth and a
novice, to enter the arena of the geological tournament where such powerful champions waged war;
but it was very interesting to view the combat, well sustained as it was on both sides, and protracted,
without a decisive issue, into a drawn battle....
The conflicts of the rival schools of Edinburgh—the Neptunists and the Vulcanists, the Wernerians
and the Huttonians, were sustained with great zeal, energy, talent, and science; they were indeed
marked too decidedly by a partisan spirit, but this very spirit excited untiring activity in discovering,
arranging, and criticising the facts of geology. It was a transition period between the epoch of
geological hypotheses and dreams, which had passed by, and the era of strict philosophical induction,
in which the geologists of the present day are trained....
I was a diligent and delighted listener to the discussions of both schools. Still the igneous
philosophers appeared to me to assume more than had been proved regarding internal heat. In

imagination we were plunged into a fiery Phlegethon, and I was glad to find relief in the cold bath of
the Wernerian ocean, where my predilections inclined me to linger.”

Silliman’s Students and Their Publications.—Silliman’s first student to
take up geology as a profession was Denison Olmstead (1791–1859),
educator, chemist, and geologist, who was graduated from Yale in 1813.
Four years later he was under special preparation with Silliman in
mineralogy and geology, and in that year was appointed professor of
chemistry in the University of North Carolina. In 1824–1825 Olmstead
issued a Report on the Geology of North Carolina, which is the first official
geological report issued by any state in America, “a conspicuous and
solitary instance,” according to Hitchcock’s review of it (14, 230, 1828), “in
which any of our state governments have undertaken thoroughly to develop
their mineral resources.”
Amos Eaton (1776–1842), lawyer, botanist, surveyor, and one of the
founders of American geology, was a graduate of Williams College in the
class of 1799. He studied with Silliman in 1815, attending his lectures on
chemistry, geology, and mineralogy. He also enjoyed access to the libraries
of Silliman and of the botanist, Levi Ives, in which works on botany and
materia medica were prominent, and was a diligent student of the College
cabinet of minerals. He settled as a lawyer and land agent in Catskill, New
York, and here in 1810 he gave a popular course of lectures on botany,
believed to have been the first attempted in the United States.
In 1818 appeared Eaton’s first noteworthy geological publication, the
Index to the Geology of the Northern States, a text-book for the classes in
geology at Williamstown. The controlling principle of this book was
Wernerism, a false doctrine from which Eaton was never able to free
himself. This book was “written over anew” and published in 1820.
While at Albany in 1818, Governor De Witt Clinton asked Eaton to
deliver a course of lectures on chemistry and geology before the members
of the legislature of New York. It is believed that Eaton is the only
American having this distinction, and because of it he became acquainted
with many leading men of the state, interesting them in geology and its
application to agriculture by means of surveys. In this way was sown the
idea which eventually was to fructify in that great official work: The

Natural History of New York. (See 43, 215, 1842; and Youmans’ sketch of
Eaton’s life, Pop. Sci. Monthly, Nov. 1890.)
Edward Hitchcock (1793–1864), reverend, state geologist, college
president, and another of the founders of American geology, was largely
self-taught. Previous to 1825, when he entered the theological department
of Yale College, he had met Amos Eaton, who interested him in botany and
mineralogy, and between 1815 and 1819 he had made lists of the plants and
minerals found about his native town, Deerfield, Massachusetts. Therefore,
while studying theology at Yale it was natural for him also to take up
mineralogy and geology with Silliman, whose acquaintance he had made at
least as early as 1818.
Hitchcock, who was destined to be one of the most prominent figures of
his time, was appointed in 1825 to the chair of chemistry and natural history
at Amherst College. His first geologic paper, one of five pages, appeared in
1815. Three years later appeared his more important paper on the Geology
and Mineralogy of a Section of Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and
Vermont (1, 105, 436, 1818). This is also noteworthy for its geological map,
the next one to be published after those of Maclure of 1809 and 1817. In
1823 came a still greater work, A Sketch of the Geology, Mineralogy, and
Scenery of the Regions contiguous to the River Connecticut (6, 1, 200,
1823; 7, 1, 1824). Here the map above referred to was greatly improved,
and the survey was one of the most important of the older publications.
Youmans in his account of Hitchcock (Pop. Sci. Monthly, Sept. 1895)
says:

“The State of Massachusetts commissioned him to make a geological survey of her territory in
1830. Three years were spent in the explorations, and the work was of such a high character that
other States were induced to follow the example of Massachusetts.... The State of New York sought
his advice in the organization of a survey, and followed his suggestions, particularly in the division of
the territory into four parts, and appointed him as the geologist of the first district. He entered upon
the work, but after a few days of labor he found that he must necessarily be separated from his
family, much to his disinclination. He also conceived the idea of urging a more thorough survey of
his own State; hence he resigned his commission and returned home. The effort for a resurvey of
Massachusetts was successful, and he was recommissioned to do the work. The results appeared in
1841 and 1844.”

Oliver P. Hubbard was assistant to Silliman in 1831–1836, and then up to
1866 taught chemistry, mineralogy, and geology at Dartmouth College.

James G. Percival was graduated at Yale in 1815, and in 1835 he and C. U.
Shepard of Amherst College were appointed state geologists of
Connecticut. Their report was issued in 1842.
James Dwight Dana (1813–1895) was undoubtedly the ablest of all of
Silliman’s students. Graduated at Yale in 1833, he spent fifteen months in
the United States Navy as instructor in mathematics, cruising off France,
Italy, Greece, and Turkey. In 1836 he was assistant to Silliman, and in 1837,
at the age of twenty-four years, he published his widely used System of
Mineralogy. Two years later Dana joined the Wilkes Exploring Expedition
as mineralogist, returning to America in 1842; his geological results of this
expedition were published in 1849. In 1863, during the Rebellion, he
published his Manual of Geology, and through four editions it remained for
forty years the standard text-book for American geologists.
First American Geological Society.—The founding in 1807 of the
Geological Society of London, the parent of geological societies,
undoubtedly had its stimulating effect on Silliman, and with his marked
organizing ability he began to think of forming an American society of the
same kind. This he brought about the year following the appearance of the
Journal, that is, in 1819. The American Geological Society, begun in 1819
(1, 442, 1819), was terminated in 1830 (17, 202, 1830). The first meeting
(September 6, 1819) and all the subsequent ones were held in the cabinet of
Yale College. The brief records of the doings of this society are printed in
volumes 1, 10, 15, and 18 of the Journal. Silliman was the attraction at the
meetings, surrounded by his mineral cabinet, and he gave “the true
scientific dress to all the naked mineralogical subjects” discussed.

Wernerian Geology in North America.
The Father of American Geology.—Historical Geology begins in
America with William Maclure’s Observations on the Geology of the
United States, issued in 1809. This was the first important original work on
North American geology, and its colored geological map was the first one
of the area east of the Mississippi River. The classification was essentially
the Wernerian system. All of the strata of the Coastal Plain, now known to
range from the Lower Cretaceous to Recent, were referred to the Alluvial.
To the west, over the area of the Piedmont, were his Primitive rocks, while
the older Paleozoic formations of the Appalachian ranges were referred to
the Transition. West of the folded area, all was Floetz or Secondary, or what
we now know as Paleozoic sedimentaries. The Triassic of the Piedmont area
and that of Connecticut he called the Old Red Sandstone, and the coal
formations of the interior region he said rested upon the Secondary. The
second edition of the work in 1817 was much improved, along with the
map, which was also printed on a more correct geographic base. (For
greater detail, see Merrill, Contributions to the History of American
Geology, 1906.)
Even though Maclure’s geologic maps are much generalized, and the
scheme of classification adopted a very broad one, they are in the main
correct, even if they do emphasize unduly the rather simple geologic
structure of North America. This fact is patent all through Maclure’s
description. Cleaveland also refers to it in his treatise of 1816, and Silliman
in the opening volume of the Journal (1, 7, 1818) says: “The outlines of
American geology appear to be particularly grand, simple, and instructive.”
Then, all the kinds of rocks were comprehended under four classes,
Primitive, Transition, Alluvial, and Volcanic. It is also interesting to note
here that in 1822 Maclure had lost faith in the aqueous origin of the igneous
rocks and writes of the Wernerian system as “fast going out of fashion” (5,
197, 1822), while Hitchcock said about the same thing in 1825 (9, 146).
The Work of Eaton.—Amos Eaton, after traveling 10,000 miles and
completing his Erie Canal Report in 1824, “reviewed the whole line several
times,” and published in 1828 in the Journal (14, 145) a paper on
Geological Nomenclature, Classes of Rocks, etc. The broader classification

is the Wernerian one of Primitive, Transition, and Secondary classes. Under
the first two he has fossiliferous early Paleozoic formations, but does not
know it, because he pays no attention anywhere to the detail of the
entombed fossils, and all of his Secondary is what we now call Paleozoic.
The correlations of the latter are faulty throughout.
Then came his paper of 1830, Geological Prodromus (17, 63), in which
he says: “I intend to demonstrate ... that all geological strata are arranged in
five analogous series; and that each series consists of three formations; viz.,
the Carboniferous [meaning mud-stones], Quartzose, and Calcareous.” We
seem to see here expressed for the first time the idea of “cycles of
sedimentation,” but Eaton does not emphasize this idea, and the localities
given for each “formation” of “analogous series” demonstrate beyond a
doubt that he did not have a sedimentary sequence. The whole is simply a
jumble of unrelated formations that happen to agree more or less in their
physical characters.
“I intend to demonstrate,” he says further, “that the detritus of New
Jersey, embracing the marle, which contains those remarkable fossil relics,
is antediluvial, or the genuine Tertiary formation.” This correlation had
been clearly shown by Finch in 1824 (7, 31) and yet both are in error in that
they do not distinguish the included Cretaceous marls and greensands as
something apart from the Tertiary.
One gets impatient with the later writings of Eaton, because he does not
become liberalized with the progressive ideas in stratigraphic geology
developing first in Europe and then in America, especially among the
geologists of Philadelphia. Therefore it is not profitable to follow his work
further.
Early American Text-books of Geology.—The first American text-book of
geology bears the date of Boston 1816 and is entitled An Elementary
Treatise on Mineralogy and Geology, its author being Parker Cleaveland of
Bowdoin College. The second edition appeared in 1822. It also had a
geologic map of the United States, practically a copy of Maclure’s. To
mineralogy were devoted 585 pages, and to geology 55, of which 37
describe rocks and 5 the geology of the United States. The chronology is
Wernerian. Of “geological systems” there are two, “primitive and secondary
rocks.”

In 1818 appeared Amos Eaton’s Index to the Geology of the Northern
States, having 54 pages, and in 1820 came the second edition, “wholly
written over anew,” with 286 pages. The theory of the later edition is still
that of Werner, with “improvements of Cuvier and Bakewell,” and yet one
sees now-a-days but little in it of the far better English text-book. Eaton did
very little to advance philosophic geology in America. What is of most
value here are his personal observations in regard to the local geology of
western Massachusetts, Connecticut, southwestern Vermont, and eastern
New York (1, 69, 1819; also Merrill, p. 234).
We come now to the most comprehensive and advanced of the early text-
books used in America. This is the third English edition of Robert
Bakewell’s Introduction to Geology (400 pages, 1829), and the first
American edition “with an Appendix Containing an Outline of his Course
of Lectures on Geology at Yale College, by Benjamin Silliman” (128
pages). Bakewell’s good book is in keeping with the time, and while not so
advanced as Conybeare and Phillips’s Outlines of 1822, yet is far more so
than Silliman’s appendix. The latter is general and not specific as to details;
it is still decidedly Wernerian, though in a modified form. Silliman says he
is “neither Wernerian nor Huttonian,” and yet his summary on pages 120 to
126 shows clearly that he was not only a Wernerian but a pietist as well.

Unearthing of the Cenozoic and Mesozoic in North America.

The Discerning of the Tertiary.—The New England States, with their
essentially igneous and metamorphic formations, could not furnish the
proper geologic environment for the development of stratigraphers and
paleontologists. So in America we see the rise of such geologists first in
Philadelphia, where they had easy access to the horizontal and highly
fossiliferous strata of the coastal plain. The first one to attract attention was
Thomas Say, after him came John Finch, followed by Lardner Vanuxem,
Isaac Lea, Samuel G. Morton, and T. A. Conrad. These men not only
worked out the succession of the Cenozoic and the upper part of the
Mesozoic, but blazed the way among the Paleozoic strata as well.
Thomas Say (1787–1834), in 1819, was the first American to point out
the chronogenetic value of fossils in his article, Observations on some
Species of Zoophytes, Shells, etc., principally Fossil (1, 381). He correctly
states that the progress of geology “must be in part founded on a knowledge
of the different genera and species of reliquiæ, which the various accessible
strata of the earth present.” Say fully realizes the difficulties in the study of
fossils, because of their fragmental character and changed nature, and that
their correct interpretation requires a knowledge of similar living
organisms.
The application of what Say pointed out came first in John Finch’s
Geological Essay on the Tertiary Formations in America (7, 31, 1824). Even
though the paper is still laboring under the mineral system and does not
discern the presence of Cretaceous strata among his Tertiary formations, yet
Finch also sees that “fossils constitute the medals of the ancient world, by
which to ascertain the various periods.”
Finch now objects to the wide misuse in America of the term alluvial and
holds that it is applied to what is elsewhere known as Tertiary. He says:

“Geology will achieve a triumph in America, when the term alluvial shall be banished from her
Geological Essays, or confined to its legitimate domain, and then her tertiary formations will be seen
to coincide with those of Europe, and the formations of London, Paris, and the Isle of Wight, will
find kindred associations in Virginia, the Carolinas, Georgias, the Floridas, and Louisiana.”

The formations as he has them from the bottom upwards are: (1)
Ferruginous sand, (2) Plastic clay, (3) Calcaire Silicieuse of the Paris Basin,
(4) London Clay, (5) Calcaire Ostrée, (6) Upper marine formation, (7)
Diluvial.
The grandest of these early stratigraphic papers, however, is that by
Lardner Vanuxem (1792–1848), of only three pages, entitled “Remarks on
the Characters and Classification of Certain American Rock Formations”
(16, 254, 1829). Vanuxem, a cautious man and a profound thinker, had been
educated at the Paris School of Mines. James Hall told the writer in a
conversation that while the first New York State Survey was in operation,
all of its members looked to Vanuxem for advice.
In the paper above referred to, Vanuxem points out in a very concise
manner that:

“The alluvial of Mr. Maclure ... contains not only well characterized alluvion, but products of the
tertiary and secondary classes. Littoral shells, similar to those of the English and Paris basins, and
pelagic shells, similar to those of the chalk deposition or latest secondary, abound in it. These two
kinds of shells are not mixed with each other; they occur in different earthy matter, and, in the
southern states particularly, are at different levels. The incoherency or earthiness of the mass, and our
former ignorance of the true position of the shells, have been the sources of our erroneous views.”

The second error of the older geologists, according to Vanuxem, was the
extension of the secondary rocks over “the western country, and the back
and upper parts of New York.” They are now called Paleozoic. Some had
even tried to show the presence of Jurassic here because of the existence of
oölite strata. “It was taken for granted, that all horizontal rocks are
secondary, and as the rocks of these parts of the United States are horizontal
in their position, so they were supposed to be secondary.” He then shows on
the basis of similar Ordovician fossils that the rocks of Trenton Falls, New
York, recur at Frankfort in Kentucky, and at Nashville in Tennessee.
“It is also certain that an uplifting or downfalling force, or both, have
existed, but it is not certain that either or both these forces have acted in a
uniform manner.... Innumerable are the facts, which have fallen under my
observation, which show the fallacy of adopting inclination for the
character of a class,” such as the Transition class of strata. He then goes on
to say that in the interior of our country the so-called secondary rocks are
horizontal and in the mountains to the east the same strata are highly

inclined. “The analogy, or identity of rocks, I determine by their fossils in
the first instance, and their position and mineralogical characters in the
second or last instance.”
It appears that Isaac Lea (1792–1886) in his Contributions to Geology,
1833, was the first to transplant to America Lyell’s terms, Pliocene,
Miocene, and Eocene, proposed the previous year. The celebrated Claiborne
locality was made known to Lea in 1829, and in the work here cited he
describes from it 250 species, of which 200 are new. The horizon is
correlated with the London Clay and with the Calcaire Grossier of France,
both of Eocene time (25, 413, 1834).
Timothy A. Conrad began to write about the American Tertiary in 1830,
and his more important publications were issued at Philadelphia. His papers
in the Journal begin with 1833 and the last one on the Tertiary is in 1846.
The Tertiary faunas and stratigraphy have been modernized by William
H. Dall in his monumental work of 1650 pages and 60 plates entitled
“Contributions to the Tertiary Fauna of Florida” (1885–1903). Here more
than 3160 forms of the Atlantic and Gulf deposits are described, but in
order to understand their relations to the fossil faunas elsewhere and to the
living world, the author studied over 10,000 species. Since then, many other
workers have interested themselves in the Tertiary problems. Much good
work is also being done in the Pacific States where the sequence is being
rapidly developed.
The Discerning of the Eastern Cretaceous.—The Cretaceous sequence
was first determined by that “active and acute geologist,” Samuel G.
Morton (1799–1851), but that these rocks might be present along the
Atlantic border had been surmised as early as 1824 by Edward Hitchcock
(7, 216). Vanuxem, as above pointed out, indicated the presence of the
Cretaceous in 1829. In this same year Morton proved its presence before the
Philadelphia Academy of Natural Sciences.
Between 1830 and 1835 Morton published a series of papers in the
Journal under the title “Synopsis of the Organic Remains of the Ferruginous
Sand Formation of the United States, with Geological Remarks” (17, 274,
et seq.). In these he describes the Cretaceous fossils and demonstrates that
the “Diluvial” and Tertiary strata of the Atlantic border also have a long
sequence of Cretaceous formations. In the opening paper he writes: “I
consider the marl of New Jersey as referable to the great ferruginous sand

series, which in Prof. Buckland’s arrangement is designated by the name of
green sand.... On the continent this series is called the ancient chalk ...
lower chalk,” etc. Again, the marls of New Jersey are “geologically
equivalent to those beds which in Europe are interposed between the white
chalk and the Oölites.” This correlation is with the European Lower
Cretaceous, but we now know the marls to be of Upper Cretaceous age.
Although Eaton objected strenuously to Morton’s correlation, we find M.
Dufresnoy of France saying, “Your limestone above green sand reminds me
very much of the Mæstricht beds,” a correlation which stands to this day
(22, 94, 1832). In 1833 Morton announces that the Cretaceous is known all
along the Atlantic and Gulf border, and in the Mississippi valley. “The same
species of fossils are found throughout,” and none of them are known in the
Tertiary. He now arranges the strata of the former “Alluvial” as follows:
Alluvial.
Modern
Diluvial.
Upper Tertiary (Upper Marine).
Tertiary Middle Tertiary (London Clay).
Lower Tertiary (Plastic Clay).
Calcareous Strata
Secondary Cretaceous group, or Ferruginous Sand series (24, 128).
Ferruginous Sand
Western Cretaceous.—In 1841 and 1843 J. N. Nicollet announced the
discovery of Cretaceous in the Rocky Mountain area. Of 20 species of
fossils collected by him, 4 were said to occur on the Atlantic border, and of
the 200 forms of the Atlantic slope only 1 was found in Europe. Here we
see pointed out a specific dissimilarity between the continents, and a
similarity between the American areas of Cretaceous deposits (41, 181; 45,
153).
The Cretaceous of the Rocky Mountains was clearly developed by F. V.
Hayden in 1855–1888 and by F. B. Meek (1857–1876). Other workers in
this field were Charles A. White (1869–1891), and R. P. Whitfield (1877–
1889). Since 1891 T. W. Stanton has been actively interpreting its
stratigraphy and faunas.
Cretaceous and Comanche of Texas.—The broader outlines of the
Cretaceous of Texas had been described by Ferdinand Roemer in 1852 in
his good work, Kreidebildungen von Texas, but it was not until 1887 that
Robert T. Hill showed in the Journal (33, 291) that it included two great
series, the Gulf series, or what we now call Upper Cretaceous, and a new

one, the Comanche series. This was a very important step in the right
direction. Since then the Comanche series has been regarded by some
stratigraphers as of period value, while others call it Lower Cretaceous; the
rest of the Texas Cretaceous is divided by Hill into Middle and Upper
Cretaceous. On the other hand, Lower Cretaceous strata had been proved
even earlier in the state of California, for here in 1869 W. M. Gabb (1839–
1878) and J. D. Whitney (1819–1896) had defined their Shasta group,
which was wholly distinct faunally from the Comanche of Texas and the
southern part of the Great Plains country.
Jurassic and Triassic of the West.—In 1864, the Geological Survey of
California proved the presence of marine Upper Triassic in that State, and
since then it has been shown that not only is all of the Triassic present in
Idaho (where it has been known since 1877), Oregon, Nevada, and
California, but that the Upper Triassic is of very wide distribution
throughout western North America. Jurassic strata, on the other hand, were
not shown to be present in California until 1885, while in the Rocky
Mountain area of the United States there was long known an unresolved
series of “Red Beds” situated between the Carboniferous and Cretaceous.
This gave rise to the “Red Bed problem,” the history of which is given by
C. A. White in the Journal (17, 214, 1879). In 1869, F. V. Hayden
announced the discovery of marine Jurassic fossils in this series, and since
then they have come to be known as the Sundance fauna, extending from
southern Utah and Colorado into Alaska. Above lie the dinosaur-bearing
fresh-water deposits, since 1894 known as the Morrison beds. In 1896, O.
C. Marsh (1831–1899) announced the presence of Jurassic fresh-water
strata along the Atlantic coast (2, 433), but to-day only a small part of them
are regarded as of the age of the Morrison, while the far greater part are
referred to the Comanche or Lower Cretaceous. The red beds below the
Jurassic of the Rocky Mountain area have during the past twenty years been
shown to be in part of Upper Triassic age and of fresh-water origin, while
the greater lower part is connected with the Carboniferous series and is
made up of brackish— and fresh-water deposits of probable Permian time.
Triassic of Atlantic States.—The fresh-water Triassic of the Atlantic
border states was first mentioned by Maclure (1817), who regarded it as the
equivalent of the Old Red Sandstone of Europe. In this he was followed by
Hitchcock in 1823 (6, 39), the latter saying that above it lies “the coal

formation,” which is true for Europe, but in America the coal strata are
older than these red beds, now known to be of Triassic age.
The first one to question this correlation was Alexandre Brongniart, who
had received from Hitchcock rock specimens and a fossil fish which he
erroneously identified with a Permian species, and accordingly referred the
strata to the Permian (3, 220, 1821; 6, 76, pl. 9, figs. 1, 2, 1823). The
discerning Professor Finch in 1826 remarked that the red beds of
Connecticut appear to belong “to the new or variegated sandstone,” because
of eight different criteria that he mentions. Of these, but two are of value in
correlation, their “geological position” and the presence of bones other than
fishes. In the Connecticut area, however, the geological position cannot be
determined even to-day, and in Finch’s time the bones of dinosaurs were
unknown. Finch then goes on to point out the occurrences of Old Red
Sandstone in Pennsylvania, but all of the places he refers to are either
younger or older in time. Here we again see the fatality of trying to make
positive correlations on the basis of lithology and color (10, 209, 1826). In
1835, however, Hitchcock showed that the bones that had been found in
1820 were those of a saurian, and accordingly referred the strata of the
Connecticut valley to the New Red Sandstone, a term that then covered
both the Permian and the Triassic. In 1842, W. B. Rogers referred the beds
to the Jurassic, on the basis of plants from Virginia. In 1856, W. C. Redfield
(1789–1857), because of the fishes, advocated a Lias, or Jurassic age, and
proposed the name Newark group for all the Triassic deposits of the
Atlantic border. More recently, on the basis of the plants studied by
Newberry, Fontaine, Sturr, and Ward, and the vertebrates described by
Marsh and Lull, the age has been definitely fixed as Upper Triassic (see
Dana’s Manual of Geology, 740, 1895).

Unearthing of the Paleozoic in North America.

Permian of the United States.—In Europe, previous to 1841, the
formations now classed as Permian were included in the New Red
Sandstone, and with the Carboniferous were referred to the Secondary. In
that year Murchison proposed the period term Permian. In 1845 came the
classic Geology of Russia in Europe and the Ural Mountains, by
Murchison, Keyserling, and De Verneuil. In this great work the authors
separated out of the New Red the Magnesian Limestone of Great Britain
and the Rothliegende marls, Kupferschiefer, and Zechstein of Germany, and
with other formations of the Urals in Russia, referred them to the Permian
system. This step, one of the most discerning in historical geology, was all
the more important because they closed the Paleozoic era with the Permian,
beginning the Secondary, or Mesozoic, with the New Red Sandstone or the
Triassic period. There is a good review of this work by D. D. Owen (1807–
1860) in the Journal for 1847 (3, 153).
Owen, though accepting the Permian system, is not satisfied with its
reference to the Paleozoic, and he sets the matter forth in the Journal (3,
365, 1847). He doubts “the propriety of a classification which throws the
Permian and Carboniferous systems into the Paleozoic period.” This is
mainly because there is no “evidence of disturbance or unconformability”
between the Permian and Triassic systems. Rather “there is so complete a
blending of adjacent strata” that it is only in Russia that the Permian has
been distinguished from the Triassic. This view of Owen’s was not only
correct for Russia but even more so for the Alps and for India, and it has
taken a great deal of work and discussion to fix upon the disconformable
contact that distinguishes the Paleozoic from the Mesozoic in these areas. In
other words, there was here at this time no mountain making. Then Owen
goes on to state that because the Permian of Europe has reptiles, he sees in
them decisive Mesozoic evidence. “These are certainly strong arguments in
favor of placing, not only the Permian, but also the Carboniferous group in
the Mesozoic period, and terminating the Paleozoic division with the
commencement of the coal measures.” To this harking backward the
geologists of the world have not agreed, but have followed the better views
of Murchison and his associates.

In 1855 G. G. Shumard discovered, and in 1860 his brother B. F.
Shumard (1820–1869) announced, the presence of Permian strata in the
Guadalupe Mountains of Texas, and in 1902 George H. Girty (14, 363)
confirmed this. Girty regards the faunas as younger than any other late
Paleozoic ones of America, and says: “For this reason I propose to give
them a regional name, which shall be employed in a force similar to
Mississippian and Pennsylvanian.... The term Guadalupian is suggested.”
G. C. Swallow (1817–1899) in 1858 was the first to announce the
presence of Permian fossils in Kansas, and this led to a controversy between
himself and F. B. Meek, both claiming the discovery. It is only in more
recent years that it has been generally admitted that there is Permian in that
state, in Oklahoma, and in Texas. This admission came the more readily
through the discovery of many reptiles in the red beds of Texas, and through
the work of C. A. White, published in 1891, The Texan Permian and its
Mesozoic Types of Fossils (Bull. U. S. Geological Survey, No. 77).

Carboniferous Formations.—The coal formations are noted in a general
way throughout the earliest volumes of the Journal. The first accounts of the
presence of coal, in Ohio, are by Caleb Atwater (1, 227, 239, 1819), and S.
P. Hildreth (13, 38, 40, 1828). The first coal plants to be described and
illustrated were also from Ohio, in an article by Ebenezer Granger in 1821
(3, 5–7). The anthracite field was first described in 1822 by Zachariah Cist
(4, 1) and then by Benjamin Silliman (10, 331–351, 1826); that of western
Pennsylvania was described by William Meade in 1828 (13, 32).
The Lower Carboniferous was first recognized by W. W. Mather in 1838
(34, 356). Later, through the work of Alexander Winchell (1824–1891),

beginning in 1862 (33, 352) and continuing until 1871, and through the
surveys of Iowa (1855–1858), Illinois (essentially the work of A. H.
Worthen, 1858–1888), Ohio (1838, Mather, etc.), and Indiana (Owen, etc.,
1838), there was eventually worked out the following succession:
Permian period.
Upper Barren series.
Dunkard group.
Washington group.
Pennsylvanian period.
Upper Productive Coal series. Monongahela series.
Lower Barren Coal Measures. Conemaugh series.
Lower Productive Coal Measures. Allegheny series.
Pottsville series.

The New York System.—We now come to the epochal survey of the State
of New York, one that established the principles of, and put order into,
American stratigraphy from the Upper Cambrian to the top of the
Devonian. No better area could have been selected for the establishing of
this sequence. This survey also developed a stratigraphic nomenclature
based on New York localities and rock exposures, and made full use of the
entombed fossils in correlation. Incidentally it developed and brought into
prominence James Hall, who continued the stratigraphic work so well
begun and who also laid the foundation for paleontology in America,
becoming its leading invertebrate worker.
This work is reviewed at great length in the Journal in the volumes for
1844–1847 by D. D. Owen. Evidently it followed too new a plan to receive
fulsome praise from conservative Owen, as it should have. He remarks that
the volumes “are not a little prolix, are voluminous and expensive, and do
not give as clear and connected a view of the geological features of the state
as could be wished.... We are of the opinion that before this work can
become generally useful and extensively circulated, it must be condensed
and arranged into one compendious volume” (46, 144, 1844). This was
never done and yet the work was everywhere accepted at once, and to this
end undoubtedly Owen’s detailed review helped much.
The Natural History Survey of New York was organized in 1836 and
completed in 1843. The state was divided into four districts, and to these
were finally assigned the following experienced geologists. The
southeastern part was named the First District, with W. W. Mather (1804–
1859) as geologist; the northeastern quarter was the Second District, with

Ebenezer Emmons (1799–1863) in charge; the central portion was the Third
District, under Lardner Vanuxem (1792–1848); while the western part was
James Hall’s (1811–1898) Fourth District. Paleontology for a time was in
charge of T. A. Conrad (1830–1877); the mineralogical and chemical work
was in the hands of Lewis C. Beck; the botanist was John Torrey; and the
zoologist James DeKay.
The New York State Survey published six annual reports of 1675 pages
octavo, and four final geological reports with 2079 pages quarto. Finally in
1846 Emmons added another volume on the soils and rocks of the state, in
which he also discussed the Taconic and New York systems; it has 371
pages. With the completion of the first survey, Hall took up his life work
under the auspices of the state—his monumental work, Paleontology of
New York, in fifteen quarto volumes of 4539 pages and 1081 plates of
fossils. In addition to all this, there are his annual and other reports to the
Regents of the State, so that it is safe to say that he published not less than
10,000 pages of printed matter on the geology and paleontology of North
America.
In regard to this great series of works, all that can be presented here is a
table of formations as developed by the New York State Survey. Practically
all of its results and formation names have come into general use, with the
exception of the Taconic system of Emmons and the division terms of the
New York system. (See p. 88.)
The New York State Survey, begun in 1836, was continued by James Hall
from 1843 to 1898. During this time he was also state geologist of Iowa
(1855–1858) and Michigan (1862). Since 1898, John M. Clarke has ably
continued the Geological Survey of New York, the state which continues to
be, in science and more especially in geology and paleontology, the
foremost in America.
Western Extension of the New York system.—Before Hall finished his
final report, we find him in 1841 on “a tour of exploration through the states
of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, a part of Michigan, Kentucky, and Missouri, and
the territories of Iowa and Wisconsin.” This tour is described in the Journal
(42, 51, 1842) under the caption “Notes upon the Geology of the Western
States.” His object was to ascertain how far the New York system as the
standard of reference “was applicable in the western extension of the
series.” In a general way he was very successful in extending the system to

the Mississippi River, and he clearly saw “a great diminution, first of sandy
matter, and next of shale, as we go westward, and in the whole, a great
increase of calcareous matter in the same direction.” He also clearly noted
the warped nature of the strata, the “anticlinal axis,” since known as the
Cincinnati and Wabash uplifts and the Ozark dome.
Hall, however, fell into a number of flagrant errors because of a too great
reliance on lithologic correlation and supposedly similar sequence. For
instance, the Coal Measures of Pennsylvania were said to directly overlap
the Chemung group of southern New York, and now he finds the same
condition in Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, failing to see that in most places
between the top of the New York system and the Coal Measures lay the
extensive Mississippian series, one that he generally confounded with the
Chemung, or included in the “Carboniferous group.” He states that the
Portage of New York is the same as the Waverly of Ohio, and at Louisville
the Middle Devonian waterlime is correlated with the similar rock of the
New York Silurian. Hall was especially desirous of fixing the horizon of the
Middle Ordovician lead-bearing rocks of Illinois, Wisconsin, and Iowa, but
unfortunately correlated them with the Niagaran, while the Middle
Devonian about Columbus, Ohio, and Louisville, Kentucky, he referred to
the same horizon. The Galena-Niagaran error was corrected in 1855, but the
Devonian and Mississippian ones remained unadjusted for a long time, and
in Iowa until toward the close of the nineteenth century.
The Geological Column of the New York Geologists of 1842–1843, according to W. W.
Mather 1842.

Alluvial division.
Quaternary system Quaternary division.
Drift division.
These strata are included in the
Tertiary system
next lower division.
Long Island division. Equals the
Tertiary and Cretaceous marls, New Red
sands, and clays of the coastal system of
Upper Secondary system plain of New Jersey. Emmons
Trappean division. The Palisades and Hall.
Red Sandstone division.

Coal system of Mather, and Carboniferous system of Hall.
Old Red system of Catskill Mountains of Emmons; Catskill division of Mather and Hall; and
Catskill group of Vanuxem.

According to Hall 1843, and essentially Vanuxem 1842.

Chemung, Portage or Nunda (divided into
Cashaqua, Gardeau, Portage), Genesee, Tully,
Erie division [Devonian]
Hamilton (divided into Ludlowville; Encrinal,
Moscow), and Marcellus.
Corniferous, Onondaga, Schoharie, Cauda-alli,
Helderberg series [Devonian- Oriskany, Upper Pentamerus, Encrinal,
Silurian] Delthyris, Pentamerus, Waterlime, Onondaga
salt group.
Ontario division [Silurian] Niagara, Clinton, and Medina.
Oneida or Shawangunk, Grey sandstone, Hudson
Champlain division [Silurian- River group, Utica, Trenton, Black River
Ordovician-Upper Cambrian] including Birdseye and Chazy, Calciferous
sandrock, and Potsdam.

According to Emmons 1842, Mather 1843, Vanuxem 1842, Hall 1843.

Taconic System [Ordovician and Granular quartz, Stockbridge limestone,
Lower Cambrian] Magnesian slate, and Taconic slate.
Primary or Hypogene system Metamorphic and Primary rocks.
Correlations with Europe.—The first effort toward correlating the New
York system with those of Europe was made by Conrad in his Notes on
American Geology in 1839 (35, 243). Here he compares it on faunal
grounds with the Silurian system. A more sustained effort was that of Hall
in 1843 (45, 157), when he said that the Silurian of Murchison was equal to
the New York system and embraced the Cambrian, Silurian, and Devonian,
which he considered as forming but one system. Hall in 1844 and Conrad
earlier were erroneously regarding the Middle Devonian of New York
(Hamilton) as “an equivalent of the Ludlow rocks of Mr. Murchison” (47,
118, 1844).
In 1846 E. P. De Verneuil spent the summer in America with a view to
correlating the formations of the New York system with those of Europe. At
this time he had had a wide field experience in France, Germany, and
Russia, was president of the Geological Society of France, and “virtually
the representative of European geology” (2, 153, 1846). Hall says, “No
other person could have presented so clear and perfect a coup d’oeil.” De
Verneuil’s results were translated by Hall and with his own comments were
published in the Journal in 1848 and 1849 under the title “On the
Parallelism of the Paleozoic Deposits of North America with those of
Europe.” De Verneuil was especially struck with the complete development

of American Paleozoic deposits and said it was the best anywhere. On the
other hand, he did not agree with the detailed arrangement of the formations
in the various divisions of the New York system, and Hall admitted
altogether too readily that the terms were proposed “as a matter of
concession, and it is to be regretted that such an artificial classification was
adopted.” De Verneuil’s correlations are as follows:
The Lower Silurian system begins with the Potsdam, the analogue of the
Obolus sandstone of Russia and Sweden. The Black River and Trenton hold
the position of the Orthoceras limestones of Sweden and Russia, while the
Utica and Lorraine are represented by the Graptolite beds of the same
countries. Both correlations are in partial error. He unites the Chazy,
Birdseye, and Black River in one series, and in another the Trenton, Utica,
and Lorraine. Of species common to Europe and America he makes out
seventeen.
In the Upper Silurian system, the Oneida and Shawangunk are taken out
of the Champlain division, and, with the Medina, are referred to the
Silurian, along with all of the Ontario division plus the Lower Helderberg.
The Clinton is regarded as highest Caradoc or as holding a stage between
that and the Wenlock. The Niagara group is held to be the exact equivalent
of the Wenlock, “while the five inferior groups of the Helderberg division
represent the rocks of Ludlow.” We now know that these Helderberg
formations are Lower Devonian in age. De Verneuil unites in one series the
Waterlime, Pentamerus, Delthyris, Encrinal, and Upper Pentamerus. Of
identical species there are forty common to Europe and America.
The Devonian system De Verneuil begins, “after much hesitation,” with
the Oriskany and certainly with the five upper members of Hall’s
Helderberg division, all of the Erie and the Old Red Sandstone. He also
adjusts Hall’s error by placing in the Devonian the Upper Cliff limestone of
Ohio and Indiana, regarded by the former as Silurian. The Oriskany is
correlated with the grauwackes of the Rhine, and the Onondaga or
Corniferous with the lower Eifelian. Cauda-galli, Schoharie, and Onondaga
are united in one series; Marcellus, Hamilton, Tully, and Genesee in
another; and Portage and Chemung in a third. Of species common to
Europe and America there are thirty-nine.
The Waverly of Ohio and that near Louisville, Kentucky, which Hall had
called Chemung, De Verneuil correctly refers to the Carboniferous, but to

this Hall does not consent. De Verneuil points out that there are thirty-one
species in common between Europe and America. “And as to plants, the
immense quantity of terrestrial species identical on the two sides of the
Atlantic, proves that the coal was formed in the neighborhood of lands
already emerged, and placed in similar physical conditions.”
An analysis of the Paleozoic fossils of Europe and America leads De
Verneuil to “the conviction that identical species have lived at the same
epoch in America and in Europe, that they have had nearly the same
duration, and that they succeeded each other in the same order.” This he
states is independent of the depth of the seas, and of “the upheavings which
have affected the surface of the globe.” The species of a period begin and
drop out at different levels, and toward the top of a system the whole takes
on the character of the next one. “If it happens that in the two countries a
certain number of systems, characterized by the same fossils, are
superimposed in the same order, whatever may be, otherwise, their
thickness and the number of physical groups of which they are composed, it
is philosophical to consider these systems as parallel and synchronous.”
Because of the dominance of the sandstones and shales in eastern New
York, De Verneuil holds that a land lay to the east. The many fucoids and
ripple-marks from the Potsdam to the Portage indicated to him shallow
water and nearness to a shore.
The Oldest Geologic Eras.—We have seen in previous pages how the
Primitive rocks of Arduino and of Werner had been resolved, at least in part,
into the systems of the Paleozoic, but there still remained many areas of
ancient rocks that could not be adjusted into the accepted scheme. One of
the most extensive of these is in Canada, where the really Primitive
formations, of granites, gneisses, schists, and even undetermined sediments,
abound and are developed on a grander scale than elsewhere, covering more
than two million square miles and overlain unconformably by the Paleozoic
and later rocks. The first to call attention to them was J. I. Bigsby, a medical
staff officer of the British Army, in 1821 (3, 254). It was, however, William
E. Logan (1798–1875), the “father of Canadian geology,” who first
unravelled their historical sequence. At first he also called them Primary,
but after much work he perceived in them parallel structures and
metamorphosed sediments, underlain by and associated with pink granites.
For the oldest masses, essentially the granites, he proposed the term

Laurentian system (1853, 1863) and for the altered and deformed strata, the
name Huronian series (1857, 1863). Overlying these unconformably was a
third series, the copper-bearing rocks. Since his day a great host of
Canadian and American geologists have labored over this, the most intricate
of all geology, and now we have the following tentative chronology
(Schuchert and Barrell, 38, 1, 1914):
Late Proterozoic era.
Keweenawan, Animikian and Huronian periods.
Early Proterozoic era.
Sudburian period or older Huronian.
Archeozoic era.
Grenville series, etc.
Cosmic history.

The Taconic System Resurrected.

The Taconic system was first announced by Ebenezer Emmons in 1841,
and clearly defined in 1842. It started the most bitter and most protracted
discussion in the annals of American geology. After Emmons’s subsequent
publications had put the Taconic system through three phases, Barrande of
Bohemia in 1860–1863 shed a great deal of new and correct light upon it,
affirming in a series of letters to Billings that the Taconic fossils are like
those of his Primordial system, or what we now call the Middle Cambrian
(31, 210, 1861, et seq.).
In a series of articles published by S. W. Ford in the Journal between
1871 and 1886, there was developed the further new fact that in Rensselaer
and Columbia counties, New York, the so-called Hudson River group
abounds in “Primordial” fossils wholly unlike those of the Potsdam, and
which Ford later on spoke of as belonging to “Lower Potsdam” time.
James D. Dana entered the field of the Taconic area in 1871 and
demonstrated that the system also abounds in Ordovician fossiliferous
formations. Then came the far-reaching work of Charles D. Walcott,
beginning in 1886, which showed that all through eastern New York and
into northern Vermont the Hudson River group and the Taconic system
abound not only in Ordovician but also in Cambrian fossils. Finally in 1888
Dana presented a Brief History of Taconic Ideas, and laid away the system
with these words (36, 27):

“It is almost fifty years since the Taconic system made its abrupt entrance into geological science.
Notwithstanding some good points, it has been through its greater errors, long a hindrance to
progress here and abroad ... But, whether the evil or the good has predominated, we may now hope,
while heartily honoring Professor Emmons for his earnest geological labors and his discoveries, that
Taconic ideas may be allowed to be and remain part of the past.”

As an epitaph Dana placed over the remains of the Taconic system the
black-faced numerals 1841–1888. That the remains of the system, however,
and the term Taconic are still alive and demanding a rehearing is apparent
to all interested stratigraphers. This is not the place to set the matter right,

and all that can be done at the present time is to point out what are the
things that still keep alive Emmons’s system.
In the typical area of the Taconic system, i. e., in Rensselaer County,
Emmons in 1844–1846 produced the fossils Atops trilineatus and
Elliptocephala asaphoides. S. W. Ford, as stated above, later produced from
the same general area many other fossils that he demonstrated to be older
than the Potsdam sandstone. To this time he gave the name of Lower
Potsdam, thus proving on paleontological grounds that at least some part of
the Taconic system is older than the New York system, and therefore older
than the Hudson River group of Ordovician age.
In 1888 Walcott presented his conclusions in regard to the sequence of
the strata in the typical Taconic area and to the north and south of it. He
collected Lower Cambrian fossils at more than one hundred localities
“within the typical Taconic area,” and said that the thickness of his “terrane
No. 5” or “Cambrian (Georgia),” now referable to the Lower Cambrian, is
“14,000 feet or more.” He demonstrated that the Lower Cambrian is
infolded with the Lower and Middle Ordovician, and confirmed Emmons’s
statement that the former rests upon his Primary or Pre-Cambrian masses.
Elsewhere, he writes: “To the west of the Taconic range the section passes
down through the limestone (3) [of Lower and Middle Ordovician age] to
the hydromica schists (2) [whose age may also be of early Ordovician], and
thence to the great development of slates and shales with their interbedded
sparry limestones, calciferous and arenaceous strata, all of which contain
more or less of the Olenellus ... fauna.” He then knew thirty-five species in
Washington County, New York (35, 401, 1888).
Finally in 1915 Walcott said that in the Cordilleran area of America there
was a movement that brought about changes “in the sedimentation and
succession of the faunas which serve to draw a boundary line between the
Lower and Middle Cambrian series.... The length of this period of
interruption must have been considerable ... and when connection with the
Pacific was resumed a new fauna that had been developing in the Pacific
was then introduced into the Cordilleran sea and constituted the Middle
Cambrian fauna. The change in the species from the Lower to the Middle
Cambrian fauna is very great.” He then goes on to show that in the
Appalachian geosyncline there was another movement that shut out the

Middle Cambrian Paradoxides fauna of the Atlantic realm from this trough,
and all deposition as well.
Conclusions.—Accordingly it appears that everywhere in America the
Lower Cambrian formations are separated by a land interval of long
duration from those of Middle Cambrian time. These formations therefore
unite into a natural system of rocks or a period of time. Between Middle
and Upper Cambrian time, however, there appears to be a complete
transition in the Cordilleran trough, binding these two series of deposits into
one natural or diastrophic system. Hence the writer proposes that the Lower
Cambrian of America be known as the Taconic system. The Middle and
Upper Cambrian series can be continued for the present under the term
Cambrian system, a term, however, that is by no means in good standing for
these formations, as will be demonstrated under the discussion of the
Silurian controversy.

The Silurian Controversy.
Just as in America the base of the Paleozoic was involved in a protracted
controversy, so in England the Cambrian-Silurian succession was a subject
of long debate between Sedgwick and Murchison, and among the
succeeding geologists of Europe. The history of the solution is so well and
justly stated in the Journal by James D. Dana under the title “Sedgwick and
Murchison: Cambrian and Silurian” (39, 167, 1890), and by Sir Archibald
Geikie in his Text-book of Geology, 1903, that all that is here required is to
briefly restate it and to bring the solution up to date.
Adam Sedgwick (1785–1873) and R. I. Murchison (1792–1871) each
began to work in the areas of Cambria (Wales) and Siluria (England) in
1831, but the terms Cambrian and Silurian were not published until 1835.
Murchison was the first to satisfactorily work out the sequence of the
Silurian system because of the simpler structural and more fossiliferous
condition of his area. Sedgwick, on the other hand, had his academic duties
to perform at Cambridge University, and being an older and more
conservative man, delayed publishing his final results, because of the
further fact that his area was far more deformed and less fossiliferous. In
1834 they were working in concert in the Silurian area, and Sedgwick said:
“I was so struck by the clearness of the natural sections and the perfection
of his workmanship that I received, I might say, with implicit faith
everything which he then taught me.... The whole ‘Silurian system’ was by
its author placed above the great undulating slate-rocks of South Wales.” At
that time Murchison told Sedgwick that the Bala group of the latter, now
known to be in the middle of the Lower Silurian, could not be brought
within the limits of the Silurian system, and added, “I believe it to plunge
under the true Llandeilo-flags,” now placed next below the Bala and above
the Arenig, which at the present is regarded as at the base of the Ordovician.
The Silurian system was defined in print by Murchison in July, 1835, the
Upper Silurian embracing the Ludlow and Wenlock, while the Lower
Silurian was based on the Caradoc and Llandeilo. Murchison’s monumental
work, The Silurian System, of 100 pages and many plates of fossils,
appeared in 1838.

The Cambrian system was described for the first time by Sedgwick in
August, 1835, but the completed work—a classic in geology—Synopsis of
the Classification of the British Palæozoic Rocks, along with M’Coy’s
Descriptions of British Palæozoic Fossils, did not appear until 1852–1855.
Sedgwick’s original Upper Cambrian included the greater part of the chain
of the Berwyns, where he said it was connected with the Llandeilo flags of
the Silurian. The Middle Cambrian comprised the higher mountains of
Cærnarvonshire and Merionethshire, and the Lower Cambrian was said to
occupy the southwest coast of Cærnarvonshire, and to consist of chlorite
and mica schists, and some serpentine and granular limestone. In 1853 it
was seen that the fossiliferous Upper Cambrian included the Arenig,
Llandeilo, Bala, Caradoc, Coniston, Hirnant, and Lower Llandovery. On the
other hand, it was not until long after Murchison and Sedgwick passed
away that the Middle and Lower Cambrian were shown to have fossils, but
few of those that characterize what is now called Lower, Middle, and Upper
Cambrian time.
Not until long after the original announcement of the Cambrian system
did Sedgwick become aware “of the unfortunate mischief-involving fact”
that the most fossiliferous portion of the Cambrian—the Upper Cambrian—
and at that time the only part yielding determinable fossils, when compared
with the Lower Silurian was seen to be an equivalent formation but with
very different lithologic conditions. He began to see in 1842 that his
Cambrian was in conflict with the Silurian system, and four years later there
were serious divergencies of views between himself and Murchison. The
climax of the controversy was attained in 1852, when Sedgwick was
extending his Cambrian system upwards to include the Bala, Llandeilo, and
Caradoc, a proceeding not unlike that of Murchison, who earlier had been
extending his Silurian downward through all of the fossiliferous Cambrian
to the base of the Lingula flags.
Dana in his review of the Silurian-Cambrian controversy states: “The
claim of a worker to affix a name to a series of rocks first studied and
defined by him cannot be disputed.” We have seen that Murchison had
priority of publication in his term Silurian over Sedgwick’s Cambrian, but
that in a complete presentation, both stratigraphically and faunally, the
former had years of prior definition. What has even more weight is that
geologists nearly everywhere had accepted Murchison’s Silurian system as
founded upon the Lower and Upper Silurian formations. A nomenclature

once widely accepted is almost impossible to dislodge. However, in regard
to the controversy it should not be forgotten that it was only Murchison’s
Lower Silurian that was in conflict with Sedgwick’s Upper Cambrian. As
for the rest of the Cambrian, that was not involved in the controversy.
Dana goes on to state that science may accept a name, or not, according
as it is, or is not, needed. In the progress of geology, he thought that the
time had finally been reached when the name Cambrian was a necessity,
and he included both Cambrian and Silurian in the geological record. The
“Silurian,” however, included the Lower and Upper Silurian—not one
system of rocks, but two.
It is now twenty-seven years since Dana came to this conclusion, at a
time when it was believed that there was more or less continuous deposition
not only between the formations of a system but between the systems
themselves as well. To-day many geologists hold that in the course of time
the oceans pulsate back and forth over the continents, and accordingly that
the sequence of marine sedimentation in most places must be much broken,
and to-day we know that the breaks or land intervals in the marine record
are most marked between the eras, and shorter between all or at least most
of the periods. Furthermore, in North America, we have learned that the
breaks between the systems are most marked in the interior of the continent
and less so on or toward its margins.
Hardly any one now questions the fact of a long land interval between the
Lower Silurian and Upper Silurian in England, and it is to Sedgwick’s
credit that he was the first to point out this fact and also the presence of an
unconformity. It therefore follows that we cannot continue to use Silurian
system in the sense proposed by Murchison, since it includes two distinct
systems or periods. Dana, in the last edition of his Manual of Geology
(1895), also recognizes two systems, but curiously he saw nothing
incongruous in calling them “Lower Silurian era” and “Upper Silurian era.”
It certainly is not conducive to clear thinking, however, to refer to two
systems by the one name of Silurian and to speak of them individually as
Lower and Upper Silurian, thus giving the impression that the two systems
are but parts of one—the Silurian. Each one of the parts has its independent
faunal and physical characters.
We must digress a little here and note the work of Joachim Barrande
(1799–1883) in Bohemia. In 1846 he published a short account of the

“Silurian system” of Bohemia, dividing it into étages lettered C to H.
Between 1852 and 1883 he issued his “Système Silurien du Centre de la
Bohème,” in eighteen quarto volumes with 5568 pages of text and 798
plates of fossils—a monumental work unrivalled in paleontology. In the
first volume the geology of Bohemia is set forth, and here we see that
étages A and B are Azoic or pre-Cambrian, and C to H make up his Silurian
system. Etage C has his “Primordial fauna,” now known to be of
Paradoxides or Middle Cambrian time, while D is Lower Silurian, E is
Upper Silurian, F is Lower Devonian, and G and H are Middle Devonian.
From this it appears that Barrande’s Silurian system is far more extensive
than that of Murchison, embracing twice as many periods as that of England
and Wales.
About 1879 there was in England a nearly general agreement that
Cambrian should embrace Barrande’s Primordial or Paradoxides faunas,
and in the North Wales area be continued up to the top of the Tremadoc
slates. To-day we would include Middle and Upper Cambrian. Lower
Cambrian in the sense of containing the Olenellus faunas was then
unknown in Great Britain.
Lapworth, recognizing the distinctness of the Lower Silurian as a system,
proposed in 1879 to recognize it as such, and named it Ordovician,
restricting Silurian to Murchison’s Upper Silurian. This term has not been
widely used either in Great Britain or on the Continent, but in the last
twenty years has been accepted more and more widely in America. Even
here, however, it is in direct conflict with the term Champlain, proposed by
the New York State Geologist in 1842.
In 1897 the International Geological Congress published E. Renevier’s
Chronographie Géologique, wherein we find the following:
Ludlowian (Murchison 1839).
Upper or Silurian (Murchison, restricted,
Wenlockian (Murchison 1839).
1835).
Landoverian (Murchison).
Caradocian (Murchison 1839).
Silurian Middle or Ordovician (Lapworth 1879). Landeilian (Murchison 1839).
Period. Arenigian (Sedgwick 1847).
Potsdamian (Emmons 1838).
Lower or Cambrian (Sedgwick, restricted, Menevian (Salter and Hicks
1835). 1865).
Georgian (Hitchcock 1861).

Regarding this period, which, by the way, is not very unlike that of
Barrande, Renevier remarks that it is “as important as the Cretaceous or the
Jurassic. Lapworth even gives it a value of the first order equal to the
Protozoic era.”
In the above there is an obvious objection in the double usage of the term
Silurian, and this difficulty was met later on in Lapparent’s Traité by the
proposal to substitute Gothlandian for Silurian. Of this change Geikie
remarks: “Such an arrangement ... might be adopted if it did not involve so
serious an alteration of the nomenclature in general use.” On the other hand,
if diastrophism and breaks in the stratigraphic and faunal sequence are to be
the basis for geologic time divisions, we cannot accept the above scheme,
for it recognizes but one period where there are at least four in nature.
Conclusions.—We have arrived at a time when our knowledge of the
stratigraphic and faunal sequence, plus the orogenic record as recognized in
the principle of diastrophism, should be reflected in the terminology of the
geologic time-table. It would be easy to offer a satisfactory nomenclature if
we were not bound by the law of priority in publication, and if no one had
the geologic chronology of his own time ingrained in his memory. In
addition, the endless literature, with its accepted nomenclature, bars our
way. Therefore with a view of creating the least change in geologic
nomenclature, and of doing the greatest justice to our predecessors that the
present conditions of our knowledge will allow, the following scheme is
offered:

Silurian period. Llandovery to top of Ludlow in Europe. Alexandrian-Cataract-Medina to top of
Manlius in America.
Champlain (1842) or Ordovician (1879) period. Arenig to top of Caradoc in Europe.
Beekmantown to top of Richmondian in America.
Cambrian period. In the Atlantic realm, begins with the Paradoxides, and in the Pacific, with the
Bathyuriscus and Ogygopsis faunas. The close is involved in Ulrich’s provisionally defined Ozarkian
system. When the latter is established, the Ozarkian period will hold the time between the Ordovician
and the Cambrian.
Taconic period. For the world-wide Olenellus or Mesonacidæ faunas.

Paleogeography.

When geologists began to perceive the vast significance of Hutton’s
doctrine that “the ruins of an earlier world lie beneath the secondary strata,”
and that great masses of bedded rocks are separated from one another by
periods of mountain making and by erosion intervals, it was natural for
them to look for the lands that had furnished the debris of the accumulated
sediments. In this way paleogeography had its origin, but it was at first of a
descriptive and not of a cartographic nature.
The word paleogeography was proposed by T. Sterry Hunt in 1872 in a
paper entitled “The Paleogeography of the North American Continent,” and
published in the Journal of the American Geographical Society for that year.
It has to do, he says, with the “geographical history of these ancient
geological periods.” It was again prominently used by Robert Etheridge in
his presidential address before the Geological Society of London in 1881.
Since Canu’s use of the term in 1896, it has been frequently seen in print,
and now is generally adopted to signify the geography of geologic time.
The French were the first to make paleogeographic maps, and Jules
Marcou relates in 1866 that Elie de Beaumont, as early as March, 1831, in
his course in the College of France and at the Paris School of Mines, used
to outline the relation of the lands and the seas in the center of Europe at the
different great geologic periods. His first printed paleogeographic map
appeared in 1833, and was of early Tertiary time. Other maps by Beaumont
were published by Beudant in 1841–1842. The Sicilian geologist
Gemmellaro published six maps of his country in 1834, and the Englishman
De La Beche had one in the same year. In America the first to show such
maps was Arnold Guyot in his Lowell lectures of 1848. James D. Dana
published three in the 1863 edition of his Manual of Geology. Of world
paleogeographic maps, Jules Marcou produced the first of Jurassic time,
publishing it in France in 1866, but the most celebrated of these early
attempts was the one by Neumayr published in 1883 in connection with his
Ueber klimatische Zonen während der Jura- und Kreidezeit.
The first geologist to produce a series of maps showing the progressive
geologic geography of a given area was Jukes-Brown, who in the volume

entitled “The Building of the British Isles,” 1888, included fifteen such
maps. Karpinsky published fourteen maps of Russia, and in 1896 Canu in
his Essai de paléogéographie has fifty-seven of France and Belgium.
Lapparent’s Traité of 1906 is famous for paleogeographic maps, for he has
twenty-three of the world, thirty-four of Europe, twenty-five of France, and
ten taken from other authors. Schuchert in 1910 published fifty-two to
illustrate the paleogeography of North America, and also gave an extended
list of such published maps. Another article on the subject is by Th. Arldt,
“Zur Geschichte der Paläogeographischen Rekonstructionen,” published in
1914. Edgar Dacqué in 1913 also produced a list in his
Paläogeographischen Karten, and two years later appeared his book of 500
pages, Grundlagen und Methoden der Paläogeographie, where the entire
subject is taken up in detail.
Conclusions.—Since 1833 there have been published not less than 500
different paleogeographic maps, and of this number about 210 relate to
North America. Nevertheless paleogeography is still in its infancy, and most
maps embrace too much geologic time, all of them tens of thousands, and
some of them millions of years. The geographic maps of the present show
the conditions of the strand-lines of to-day, and those made fifty years ago
have to be revised again and again if they are to be of value to the mariner
and merchant. Therefore in our future paleogeographic maps the tendency
must ever be toward smaller amounts of geologic time, if we are to show
the actual relation of water to land and the movements of the periodic
floodings. Moreover, the ancient shore lines are all more or less hypothetic
and are drawn in straight or sweeping curves, unlike modern strands with
their bays, deltas, and headlands, and the ancient lands are featureless
plains. We must also pay more attention to the distribution of brackish- and
fresh-water deposits. The periodically rising mountains will be the first
topographic features to be shown upon the ancient lands, and then more and
more of the drainage and the general climatic conditions must be portrayed.
In the seas, depth, temperature, and currents are yet to be deciphered.
Finally, other base maps than those of the geography of to-day will have to
be made, allowing for the compression of the mountainous areas, if we are
to show the true geographic configurations of the lands and seas of any
given geologic time.

Paleometeorology.

In accordance with the Laplacian theory, announced at the beginning of
the nineteenth century, all of the older geologists held that the earth began
as a hot star, and that in the course of time it slowly cooled and finally
attained its present zonal cold to tropical climatic conditions. That the earth
had very recently passed through a much colder climate, a glacial one, came
into general acceptance only during the latter half of the previous century.
Rise.—Our knowledge of glacial climates had its origin in the Alps, that
wonderland of mountains and glaciers. The rise of this knowledge in the
Alps is told in a charming and detailed manner by that erratic French-
American geologist, Jules Marcou (1824–1898), in his Life, Letters, and
Works of Louis Agassiz, 1896. He relates that the Alpine chamois hunter
Perraudin in 1815 directed the attention of the engineer De Charpentier to
the fact “that the large boulders perched on the sides of the Alpine valleys
were carried and left there by glaciers.” For a long time the latter thought
the conclusion extravagant, and in the meantime Perraudin told the same
thing to another engineer, Venetz. He, in 1829, convinced of the correctness
of the chamois hunter’s views, presented the matter before the Swiss
naturalists then meeting at St. Bernard’s. Venetz “told the Society that his
observations led him to believe that the whole Valais has been formerly
covered by an immense glacier and that it even extended outside of the
canton, covering all the Canton de Vaud, as far as the Jura Mountains,
carrying the boulders and erratic materials, which are now scattered all over
the large Swiss valley.” Eight years earlier, in 1821, similar views had been
presented by the same modest naturalist before the Helvetic Society, but it
was not until 1833 that De Charpentier found the manuscript and had it
published. Venetz’s conclusions were that all of the glaciers of the Bagnes
valley “have very recognizable moraines, which are about a league from the
present ice.” “The moraines ... date from an epoch which is lost in the night
of time.” Then in 1834 De Charpentier read a paper before the same society,
meeting at Lucerne. “Seldom, if ever, has such a small memoir so deeply
excited the scientific world. It was received at first with incredulity and
even scorn and mockery, Agassiz being among its opponents.” The paper
was published in 1835, first at Paris, then at Geneva, and finally in

Germany. It “attracted much attention, and the smile of incredulity with
which it was received when read at Lucerne soon changed into a desire to
know more about it.”
Louis Agassiz (1807–1873), who had long been acquainted with his
countryman, De Charpentier, spent several months with him in 1836, and
together they studied the glaciers of the Alps. Agassiz was at first “adverse
to the hypothesis, and did not believe in the great extension of glaciers and
their transportation of boulders, but on the contrary, was a partisan of
Lyell’s theory of transport by icebergs and ice-cakes ... but from being an
adversary of the glacial theory, he returned to Neuchâtel an enthusiastic
convert to the views of Venetz and De Charpentier.... With his power of
quick perception, his unmatched memory, his perspicacity and acuteness,
his way of classifying, judging and marshalling facts, Agassiz promptly
learned the whole mass of irresistible arguments collected patiently during
seven years by De Charpentier and Venetz, and with his insatiable appetite
and that faculty of assimilation which he possessed in such a wonderful
degree, he digested the whole doctrine of the glaciers in a few weeks.”
In July, 1837, Agassiz presented as his presidential address before the
Helvetic Society his memorable “Discours de Neuchâtel,” which was “the
starting point of all that has been written on the Ice-age,”—a term coined at
the time by his friend Schimper, a botanist. The first part of this address is
reprinted in French in Marcou’s book on Agassiz. The address was received
with astonishment, much incredulity, and indifference. Among the listeners
was the great German geologist Von Buch, who “was horrified, and with his
hands raised towards the sky, and his head bowed to the distant Bernese
Alps, exclaimed: ‘O Sancte de Saussure, ora pro nobis!’” Even De
Charpentier “was not gratified to see his glacial theory mixed with rather
uncalled for biological problems, the connection of which with the glacial
age was more than problematic.” Agassiz was then a Cuvierian catastrophist
and creationist, and advanced the idea of a series of glacial ages to explain
the destruction of the geologic succession of faunas! Curiously, this theory
was at once accepted by the American paleontologist T. A. Conrad (35, 239,
1839).
The classics in glacial geology are Agassiz’s Etudes sur les Glaciers,
1840, and De Charpentier’s Essai sur les Glaciers, 1841. Of the latter book,
Marcou states that it has been said: “It is impossible to be truly a geologist

without having read and studied it.” In the English language there is
Tyndall’s Glaciers of the Alps, 1860.
The progress of the ideas in regard to Pleistocene glaciation is presented
in the following chapter by H. E. Gregory.
Older Glacial Climates.—Hardly had the Pleistocene glacial climate
been proved, when geologists began to point out the possibility of even
earlier ones. An enthusiastic Scotch writer, Sir Andrew Ramsay, in 1855
described certain late Paleozoic conglomerates of middle England, which
he said were of glacial origin, but his evidence, though never completely
gainsaid, has not been generally accepted. In the following year, an
Englishman, Doctor W. T. Blanford, said that the Talchir conglomerates of
central and southern India were of glacial origin, and since then the
evidence for a Permian glacial climate has been steadily accumulating.
Africa is the land of tillites, and here in 1870 Sutherland pointed out that the
conglomerates of the Karroo formation were of glacial origin. Australia also
has Permian glacial deposits, and they are known widely in eastern Brazil,
the Falkland Islands, the vicinity of Boston, and elsewhere. So convincing
is this testimony that all geologists are now ready to accept the conclusion
that a glacial climate was as wide-spread in early Permian time as was that
of the Pleistocene.[3]
In South Africa, beneath the marine Lower Devonian, occurs the Table
Mountain series, 5000 feet thick. The series is essentially one of quartzites,
with zones of shales or slates and with striated pebbles up to 15 inches long.
The latter occur in pockets and seem to be of glacial origin. There are here
no typical tillites, and no striated undergrounds have so far been found.
While the evidence of the deposits appears to favor the conclusion that the
Table Mountain strata were laid down in cold waters with floating ice
derived from glaciers, it is as yet impossible to assign these sediments a
definite geologic age. They are certainly not younger than the Lower
Devonian, but it has not yet been established to what period of the early
Paleozoic they belong.
In southeastern Australia occur tillites of wide distribution that lie
conformably beneath, but sharply separated from the fossiliferous marine
Lower Cambrian strata. David (1907), Howchin (1908), and other
Australian geologists think they are of Cambrian time, but to the writer they
seem more probably late Proterozoic in age. In arctic Norway Reusch

discovered unmistakable tillites in 1891, and this occurrence was confirmed
by Strahan in 1897. It is not yet certainly known what their age is, but it
appears to be late Proterozoic rather than early Paleozoic. Other undated
Proterozoic tillites occur in China (Willis and Blackwelder 1907), Africa
(Schwarz 1906), India (Vredenburg 1907), Canada (Coleman 1908), and
possibly in Scotland.
The oldest known tillites are described by Coleman in 1907, and occur at
the base of the Lower Huronian or in early Proterozoic time. They extend
across northern Ontario for 1000 miles, and from the north shore of Lake
Huron northward for 750 miles.
Fossils as Climatic Indexes.—Paleontologists have long been aware that
variations in the climates of the past are indicated by the fossils, and
Neumayr in 1883 brought the evidence together in his study of climatic
zones mentioned elsewhere. Plants, and corals, cephalopods, and
foraminifers among marine animals, have long been recognized as
particularly good “life thermometers.” In fact, all fossils are climatic
indicators to some extent, and a good deal of evidence concerning
paleometeorology has been discerned in them. This evidence is briefly
stated in the paper by Schuchert already alluded to, and in W. D. Matthew’s
Climate and Evolution, 1915.
Sediments as Climatic Indexes.—Johannes Walther in the third part of his
Einleitung—Lithogenesis der Gegenwart, 1894—is the first one to
decidedly direct attention to the fact that the sediments also have within
themselves a climatic record. In America Joseph Barrell has since 1907
written much on the same subject. On the other hand, the periodic floodings
of the continents by the oceans, and the making of mountains, due to the
periodic shrinkage of the earth, as expressed in T. C. Chamberlin’s principle
of diastrophism and in his publications since 1897, are other criteria for
estimating the climates of the past.
Conclusions.—In summation of this subject Schuchert says:

“The marine ‘life thermometer’ indicates vast stretches of time of mild to warm and equable
temperatures, with but slight zonal differences between the equator and the poles. The great bulk of
marine fossils are those of the shallow seas, and the evolutionary changes recorded in these ‘medals
of creation’ are slight throughout vast lengths of time that are punctuated by short but decisive
periods of cooled waters and great mortality, followed by quick evolution, and the rise of new stocks.
The times of less warmth are the miotherm and those of greater heat the pliotherm periods of
Ramsay.

On the land the story of the climatic changes is different, but in general the equability of the
temperature simulates that of the oceanic areas. In other words, the lands also had long-enduring
times of mild to warm climates. Into the problem of land climates, however, enter other factors that
are absent in the oceanic regions, and these have great influence upon the climates of the continents.
Most important of these is the periodic warm-water inundation of the continents by the oceans,
causing insular climates that are milder and moister. With the vanishing of the floods somewhat
cooler and certainly drier climates are produced. The effects of these periodic floods must not be
underestimated, for the North American continent was variably submerged at least seventeen times,
and over an area of from 154,000 to 4,000,000 square miles.
When to these factors is added the effect upon the climate caused by the periodic rising of
mountain chains, it is at once apparent that the lands must have had constantly varying climates. In
general the temperature fluctuations seem to have been slight, but geographically the climates varied
between mild to warm pluvial, and mild to cool arid. The arid factor has been of the greatest import
to the organic world of the lands. Further, when to all of these causes is added the fact that during
emergent periods the formerly isolated lands were connected by land bridges, permitting
intermigration of the land floras and faunas, with the introduction of their parasites and parasitic
diseases, we learn that while the climatic environment is of fundamental importance it is not the only
cause for the more rapid evolution of terrestrial life....
Briefly, then, we may conclude that the markedly varying climates of the past seem to be due
primarily to periodic changes in the topographic form of the earth’s surface, plus variations in the
amount of heat stored by the oceans. The causation for the warmer interglacial climates is the most
difficult of all to explain, and it is here that factors other than those mentioned may enter.
Granting all this, there still seems to lie back of all these theories a greater question connected with
the major changes in paleometeorology. This is: What is it that forces the earth’s topography to
change with varying intensity at irregularly rhythmic intervals?... Are we not forced to conclude that
the earth’s shape changes periodically in response to gravitative forces that alter the body-form?”

Evolution.
Modern evolution, or the theory of life continuously descending from life
with change, may be said to have had its first marked development in
Comte de Buffon (1707–1788), a man of wealth and station, yet an
industrious compiler, a brilliant writer, and a popularizer of science. He was
not, however, a true scientific investigator, and his monument to fame is his
Histoire Naturelle, in forty-four volumes, 1749–1804. A. S. Packard in his
book on Lamarck, his Life and Work, 1901, concludes in regard to Buffon
as follows:

“The impression left on the mind, after reading Buffon, is that even if he threw out these
suggestions and then retracted them, from fear of annoyance or even persecution from the bigots of
his time, he did not himself always take them seriously, but rather jotted them down as passing
thoughts.... They appeared thirty-four years before Lamarck’s theory, and though not epoch-making,
they are such as will render the name of Buffon memorable for all time.”

Chevalier de Lamarck (1744–1829) may justly be regarded as the
founder of the doctrine of modern evolution. Previous to 1794 he was a
believer in the fixity of species, but by 1800 he stood definitely in favor of
evolution. Locy in his Biology and its Makers, 1908, states his theories in
the following simplified form:

“Variations of organs, according to Lamarck, arise in animals mainly through use and disuse, and
new organs have their origin in a physiological need. A new need felt by the animal [due to new
conditions in its life, or the environment] expresses itself on the organism, stimulating growth and
adaptations in a particular direction.”

To Lamarck, “inheritance was a simple, direct transmission of those
superficial changes that arise in organs within the lifetime of an individual
owing to use and disuse.” This part of his theory has come to be known as
“the inheritance of acquired characters.”
Georges Cuvier (1769–1832), a peer of France, was a decided believer in
the fixity of species and in their creation through divine acts. In 1796 he
began to see that among the fossils so plentiful about Paris many were of

extinct forms, and later on that there was a succession of wholly extinct
faunas. This at first puzzling phenomenon he finally came to explain by
assuming that the earth had gone through a series of catastrophes, of which
the Deluge was the most recent but possibly not the last. With each
catastrophe all life was blotted out, and a new though improved set of
organisms was created by divine acts. The Cuvierian theory of
catastrophism was widely accepted during the first half of the nineteenth
century, and in America Louis Agassiz was long its greatest exponent. It
was this theory and the dominance of the brilliant Cuvier, not only in
science but socially as well, that blotted out the far more correct views of
the more philosophical Lamarck, who held that life throughout the ages had
been continuous and that through individual effort and the inheritance of
acquired characters had evolved the wonderful diversity of the present
living world.
In 1830 there was a public debate at Paris between Cuvier and Geoffroy
Saint-Hilaire, the one holding to the views of the fixity of species and
creation, the other that life is continuous and evolves into better adapted
forms. Cuvier, a gifted speaker and the greatest debater zoology ever had,
with an extraordinary memory that never failed him, defeated Saint-Hilaire
in each day’s debate, although the latter was in the right.
A book that did a great deal to prepare the English-speaking people for
the coming of evolution was “Vestiges of Creation,” published in 1844 by
an unknown author. In Darwin’s opinion, “the work, from its powerful and
brilliant style ... has done excellent service ... in thus preparing the ground
for the reception of analogous views.” This book was recommended to the
readers of the Journal (48, 395, 1845) with the editorial remark that “we
cannot subscribe to all of the author’s views.”
We can probably best illustrate the opinions of Americans on the question
of evolution just before the appearance of Darwin’s great work by directing
attention to James D. Dana’s Thoughts on Species (24, 305, 1857). After
reading this article and others of a similar nature by Agassiz, one comes to
the opinion that unconsciously both men are proving evolution, but
consciously they are firm creationists. It is astonishing that with their
extended and minute knowledge of living organisms and their philosophic
type of mind neither could see the true significance of the imperceptible

transitions between some species, which if they do not actually pass into, at
least shade towards, one another.
Dana speaks of “the endless diversities in individuals” that compose a
species, and then states that a living species, like an inorganic one, “is based
on a specific amount or condition of concentered force defined in the act or
law of creation.” Species, he says, are permanent, and hybrids “cannot
seriously trifle with the true units of nature, and at the best, can only make
temporary variations.” “We have therefore reason to believe from man’s
fertile intermixture, that he is one in species: and that all organic species are
divine appointments which cannot be obliterated, unless by annihilating the
individuals representing the species.”
Through the activities of the French the world was prepared for the
reception of evolution, and now it was already in the minds of many
advanced thinkers. In 1860 Asa Gray sent to the editor of the Journal (29, 1)
an article by the English botanist, Joseph D. Hooker, entitled “On the
Origination and Distribution of Species,” with these significant remarks:

“The essay cannot fail to attract the immediate and profound attention of scientific men.... It has
for some time been manifest that a re-statement of the Lamarckian hypothesis is at hand. We have
this, in an improved and truly scientific form, in the theories which, recently propounded by Mr.
Darwin, followed by Mr. Wallace, are here so ably and altogether independently maintained. When
these views are fully laid before them, the naturalists of this country will be able to take part in the
interesting discussion which they will not fail to call forth.”

Hooker took up a study of the flora of Tasmania, of which the above
cited article is but a chapter, with a view to trying out Darwin’s theory, and
he now accepts it. He says, “Species are derivative and mutable.” “The
limits of the majority of species are so undefinable that few naturalists are
agreed upon them.”
Asa Gray had received from Darwin an advance copy of the book that
was to revolutionize the thought of the world, and at once wrote for the
Journal a Review of Darwin’s Theory on the Origin of Species by means of
Natural Selection (29, 153, 1860). This is a splendid, critical but just,
scientific review of Darwin’s epoch-making book. Evidently views similar
to those, of the English scientist had long been in the mind of Gray, for he
easily and quickly mastered the work. He is easy on Dana’s Thoughts on
Species, which were idealistic and not in harmony with the naturalistic

views of Darwin. On the other hand, he contrasts Darwin’s views at length
with those of the creationists as exemplified by Louis Agassiz, and says
“The widest divergence appears.”
Gray says in part:

“The gist of Mr. Darwin’s work is to show that such varieties are gradually diverged into species
and genera through natural selection; that natural selection is the inevitable result of the struggle for
existence which all living things are engaged in; and that this struggle is an unavoidable consequence
of several natural causes, but mainly of the high rate at which all organic beings tend to increase.
Darwin is confident that intermediate forms must have existed; that in the olden times when the
genera, the families and the orders diverged from their parent stocks, gradations existed as fine as
those which now connect closely related species with varieties. But they have passed and left no sign.
The geological record, even if all displayed to view, is a book from which not only many pages, but
even whole alternate chapters have been lost out, or rather which were never printed from the
autographs of nature. The record was actually made in fossil lithography only at certain times and
under certain conditions (i.e., at periods of slow subsidence and places of abundant sediment); and of
these records all but the last volume is out of print; and of its pages only local glimpses have been
obtained. Geologists, except Lyell, will object to this,—some of them moderately, others with
vehemence. Mr. Darwin himself admits, with a candor rarely displayed on such occasions, that he
should have expected more geological evidence of transition than he finds, and that all the most
eminent paleontologists maintain the immutability of species.
The general fact, however, that the fossil fauna of each period as a whole is nearly intermediate in
character between the preceding and the succeeding faunas, is much relied on. We are brought one
step nearer to the desired inference by the similar ‘fact,’ insisted on by all paleontologists, that fossils
from two consecutive formations are far more closely related to each other, than are the fossils of two
remote formations.
It is well said that all organic beings have been formed on two great laws; Unity of type, and
Adaptation to the conditions of existence.... Mr. Darwin harmonizes and explains them naturally.
Adaptation to the conditions of existence is the result of Natural Selection; Unity of type, of unity of
descent.”

Gray’s article was soon followed by another one from Agassiz on
Individuality and Specific Differences among Acalephs, but the running
title is “Prof. Agassiz on the Origin of Species” (30, 142, 1860). Agassiz
stoutly maintains his well known views, and concludes as follows:

“Were the transmutation theory true, the geological record should exhibit an uninterrupted
succession of types blending gradually into one another. The fact is that throughout all geological
times each period is characterized by definite specific types, belonging to definite genera, and these
to definite families, referable to definite orders, constituting definite classes and definite branches,
built upon definite plans. Until the facts of Nature are shown to have been mistaken by those who
have collected them, and that they have a different meaning from that now generally assigned to
them, I shall therefore consider the transmutation theory as a scientific mistake, untrue in its facts,
unscientific in its method, and mischievous in its tendency.”

Dana, in reviewing Huxley’s well known book, Man’s Place in Nature
(35, 451, 1863), holds that man is apart from brute nature because man
exhibits “extreme cephalization” in that he has arms that no longer are used
in locomotion but go rather with the head, and because he has a far higher
mentality and speech. As for the Darwinian theory, the evidence, he says,
“comes from lower departments of life, and is acknowledged by its
advocates to be exceedingly scanty and imperfect.”
The growth of evolution is set forth in the Journal in Asa Gray’s article
on Charles Darwin (24, 453, 1882), which speaks of the latter as “the most
celebrated man of science of the nineteenth century,” and, in addition, as
“one of the most kindly and charming, unaffected, simple-hearted, and
lovable of men.” In regard to the rise of evolution in America, more can be
had from Dana’s paper on Asa Gray (35, 181, 1888). Here we read, as a
sequel to his Thoughts on Species, that the “paper may be taken, perhaps, as
a culmination of the past, just as the new future was to make its
appearance.” Finally, in this connection there should be mentioned O. C.
Marsh’s paper on Thomas Henry Huxley (50, 177, 1895), wherein is
recorded the latter’s share in the upbuilding of the evolutionary theory.
We have seen that originally Dana was a creationist, but in the course of
his long and fruitful life he gradually became an evolutionist, and rather a
Neo-Lamarckian than a Darwinian. This change may be traced in the
various editions of his Manual of Geology, and in the last edition of 1895 he
says his “speculative conclusions” of 1852 in regard to the origin of species
are not in “accord with the author’s present judgment.” “The evidence in
favor of evolution by variation is now regarded as essentially complete.”
On the other hand, while man is “unquestionably” closely related in
structure to the man-apes, yet he is not linked to them but stands apart,
through “the intervention of a Power above Nature.... Believing that Nature
exists through the will and ever-acting power of the Divine Being, and ...
that the whole Universe is not merely dependent on, but actually is, the Will
of one Supreme Intelligence, Nature, with Man as its culminant species, is
no longer a mystery.”
In America most of the paleontologists are Neo-Lamarckian, a school
that was developed independently by E. D. Cope (1840–1897) through the
vertebrate evidence, and by Alpheus Hyatt (1838–1902) mainly on the
evidence of the ammonites. They hold that variations and acquired

characters arise through the effects of the environment, the mechanics of the
organism resulting from the use and disuse of organs, etc. One of the
leading exponents of this school is A. S. Packard, whose book on Lamarck,
His Life and Work, 1901, fully explains the doctrines of the Neo-
Lamarckians.

The Growth of Invertebrate Paleontology.

How and by whom paleontology has been developed has been fully
stated in the Journal in a very clear manner by Professor Marsh in his
memorable presidential address of 1879, History and Methods of
Palæontological Discovery (18, 323, 1879), and by Karl von Zittel in his
most interesting book, History of Geology and Palæontology, 1901. In this
discussion we shall largely follow Marsh.
The science of paleontology has passed through four periods, the first of
them the long Mystic period extending up to the beginning of the
seventeenth century, when the idea that fossils were once living things was
only rarely perceived. The second period was the Diluvial period of the
eighteenth century, when nearly everyone regarded the fossils as remains of
the Noachian deluge. With the beginnings of the nineteenth century there
arose in western Europe the knowledge that fossils are the “medals of
creation” and that they have a chronogenetic significance; also that life had
been periodically destroyed through world-wide convulsions in nature.
From about 1800 to 1860 was the time of the creationists and catastrophists,
which may be known as the Catastrophic period. The fourth period began
in 1860 with Darwin’s Origin of Species. Since that time the theory of
evolution has pervaded all work in paleontology, and accordingly this time
may be known as the Evolutionary period.
Mystic Period.—The Mystic period in paleontology begins with the
Greeks, five centuries before the present era, and continues down to the
beginning of the seventeenth century of our time. Some correctly saw that
the fossils were once living marine animals, and that the sea had been
where they now occur. Others interpreted fossil mammal bones as those of
human giants, the Titans, but the Aristotelian view that they were of
spontaneous generation through the hidden forces of the earth dominated all
thought for about twenty centuries.
In the sixteenth century canals were being dug in Northern Italy, and the
many fossils so revealed led to a fierce discussion as to their actual nature.
Leonardo da Vinci (1452–1519) opposed the commonly accepted view of
their spontaneous generation and said that they were the remains of once

living animals and that the sea had been where they occur. “You tell me,” he
said, “that Nature and the influence of the stars have formed these shells in
the mountains; then show me a place in the mountains where the stars at the
present day make shelly forms of different ages, and of different species in
the same place.” However, nothing came of his teachings and those of his
countryman Fracastorio (1483–1553), who further ridiculed the idea that
they were the remains of the deluge. The first mineralogist, Agricola,
described them as minerals—fossilia—and said that they arose in the
ground from fatty matter set in fermentation by heat. Others said that they
were freaks of nature. Martin Lister (1638–1711) figured fossils side by
side with living shells to show that they were extinct forms of life. In the
seventeenth century, and especially in Italy and Germany, many books were
published on fossils, some with illustrations so accurate that the species can
be recognized to-day. Finally, toward the close of this century the influence
of Aristotle and the scholastic tendency to disputation came more or less to
an end. Fossils were already to many naturalists once living plants and
animals. Marsh states: “The many collections of fossils that had been
brought together, and the illustrated works that had been published about
them, were a foundation for greater progress, and, with the eighteenth
century, the second period in the history of paleontology began.”
Diluvial Period.—During the eighteenth century many more books on
fossils were published in western Europe, and now the prevalent
explanation was that they were the remains of the Noachian deluge. For
nearly a century theologians and laymen alike took this view, and some of
the books have become famous on this account, but the diluvial views
sensibly declined with the close of the eighteenth century.
The true nature of fossils had now been clearly determined. They were
the remains of plants and animals, deposited long before the deluge, part in
fresh water and part in the sea. “Some indicated a mild climate, and some
the tropics. That any of these were extinct species, was as yet only
suspected.” Yet before the close of the century there were men in England
and France who pointed out that different formations had different fossils
and that some of them were extinct. These views then led to many fantastic
theories as to how the earth was formed—dreams, most of them have been
called. Marsh says:

“The dominant idea of the first sixteen centuries of the present era was, that the universe was made
for Man. This was the great obstacle to the correct determination of the position of the earth in the
universe, and, later, of the age of the earth.... In a superstitious age, when every natural event is
referred to a supernatural cause, science cannot live.... Scarcely less fatal to the growth of science is
the age of Authority, as the past proves too well. With freedom of thought, came definite knowledge,
and certain progress;—but two thousand years was long to wait.”

One of the most significant publications of this period was Linnæus’s
Systema Naturæ, which appeared in 1735. In this work was introduced
binomial nomenclature, or the system of giving each plant and animal
species a generic and specific name, as Felis leo for the lion. The system
was, however, not established until the tenth edition of the work in 1758,
which became the starting point of zoological nomenclature. Since then
there has been added another canon, the law of priority, which holds that the
first name applied to a given form shall stand against all later names given
to the same organism.
Catastrophic Period.—With the beginning of the nineteenth century
there started a new era in paleontology, and this was the time when the
foundations of the science were laid. The period continued for six decades,
or until the time of the Origin of Species. Marsh says that now “method
replaced disorder, and systematic study superseded casual observation.”
Fossils were accurately determined, comparisons were made with living
forms, and the species named according to the binomial system. However,
every species, recent and extinct, was regarded as a separate creation, and
because of the usually sharp separation of the superposed fossil faunas and
floras, these were held to have been destroyed through a series of periodic
catastrophes of which the Noachian deluge was the last.
Lamarck between 1802 and 1806 described the Tertiary shells of the
Paris basin. Comparing them with the living forms, he saw that most of the
fossils were of extinct species, and in this way he came to be the founder of
modern invertebrate paleontology. He also maintained after 1801 that life
has been continuous since its origin and that nature has been uniform in the
course of its development. Marsh adds:

“His researches on the invertebrate fossils of the Paris Basin, although less striking, were not less
important than those of Cuvier on the vertebrates; while the conclusions he derived from them form
the basis of modern biology.”
“Lamarck was the prophetic genius, half a century in advance of his time.”

Cuvier established comparative anatomy and vertebrate paleontology,
and was one of the first to point out that fossil animals are nearly all extinct
forms. He came to the latter conclusion in 1796 through a study of fossil
elephants found in Europe. “Cuvier enriched the animal kingdom by the
introduction of fossil forms among the living, bringing all together into one
comprehensive system.” This opened to him entirely new views respecting
the theory of the earth, and he devoted more than twenty-five years to
developing the theories of special creation and catastrophism, described in
his Discourse on the Revolutions of the Surface of the Globe. “With all his
knowledge of the earth, he could not free himself from tradition, and
believed in the universality and power of the Mosaic deluge. Again, he
refused to admit the evidence brought forward by his distinguished
colleagues against the permanence of species, and used all his great
influence to crush out the doctrine of evolution, then first proposed”
(Marsh).
In England it was William Smith (1769–1839) who independently
discovered the chronogenetic significance of fossils, and in their
stratigraphic superposition indicated the way for the study of historical
geology. He first published on this matter in 1799, but his completed
statements came in works entitled “Strata identified by Organized Fossils,”
1816–1820, and “Stratigraphical System of Organized Fossils,” 1817.
Invertebrate paleontology in America during the Catastrophic period had
its beginning in Lesueur, who in 1818 described the Ordovician gastropod
Maclurites magna. All of the paleontologists of this time were satisfied to
describe species and genera and to ascertain in a broad way the stratigraphic
significance of the fossil faunas and floras. James Hall in 1854 (17, 312)
knew of 1588 species, described and undescribed, in the New York system,
while in England Morris listed in that year 8300 Paleozoic forms. In 1856
Dana recites the known fossil species as follows (22, 333): The whole
number of known American species of animals of the Permian to Recent is
about 2000; while in Britain and Europe, there were over 20,000 species. In
the Permian we have none, while Europe has over 200 species. In the
Triassic we have none, Europe 1000 species; Jurassic 60, Europe over
4000; Cretaceous 350 to 400, Europe about 6000; Tertiary hardly 1500,
Europe about 8000. Since that time nearly all of the larger American
Paleozoic faunas have been developed, but there are thousands of species
yet to be described. Who the more prominent American paleontologists of

this period were has been told in the section on the development of the
geological column.
The grander paleontologic results of the Catastrophic period have been so
well stated by Marsh that it is worth our while to repeat them here:

“It had now been proved beyond question that portions at least of the earth’s surface had been
covered many times by the sea, with alternations of fresh water and of land; that the strata thus
deposited were formed in succession, the lowest of the series being the oldest; that a distinct
succession of animals and plants had inhabited the earth during the different geological periods; and
that the order of succession found in one part of the earth was essentially the same in all. More than
30,000 new species of extinct animals and plants had now been described. It had been found, too,
that from the oldest formations to the most recent, there had been an advance in the grade of life,
both animal and vegetable, the oldest forms being among the simplest, and the higher forms
successively making their appearance.
It had now become clearly evident, moreover, that the fossils from the older formations were all
extinct species, and that only in the most recent deposits were there remains of forms still living....
Another important conclusion reached, mainly through the labors of Lyell, was, that the earth had not
been subjected in the past to sudden and violent revolutions; but the great changes wrought had been
gradual, differing in no essential respect from those still in progress. Strangely enough, the corollary
to this proposition, that life, too, had been continuous on the earth, formed at that date no part of the
common stock of knowledge. In the physical world, the great law of ‘correlation of forces’ had been
announced, and widely accepted; but in the organic world, the dogma of the miraculous creation of
each separate species still held sway.”

Evolutionary Period.—This period begins with 1860 and the publication
of Darwin’s Origin of Species (late in 1859). It is the period of modern
paleontology, and is dominated by the belief that universal laws pervade not
only inorganic matter, but all life as well. Louis Agassiz had been in
America fourteen years when Darwin’s book appeared, and his wonderful
influence in bringing the zoology of our country to a high stand and the
further influence he exerted through his students was bound to react
beneficially on invertebrate paleontology. Shortly after the beginning of this
period, or in 1867, Alpheus Hyatt, one of Agassiz’s students, began to apply
the study of embryology to fossil cephalopods, showing clearly that these
shells retain a great deal of their growth stages or ontogeny. This method of
study was then followed by R. T. Jackson, C. E. Beecher, and J. P. Smith,
and has been productive of natural classifications of the Cephalopoda,
Brachiopoda, Trilobita, and Echinoidea.
The dominant invertebrate paleontologist of this period was of course
James Hall, who described about 5000 species of American Paleozoic

fossils. He also built up the New York State Museum, while around his
private collections of fossils have been developed the American Museum of
Natural History in New York City and the Walker Museum at the University
of Chicago. In his most important laboratory of paleontology at Albany,
there have been trained either wholly or in part the following
paleontologists: F. B. Meek, C. A. White, R. P. Whitfield, C. D. Walcott, C.
E. Beecher, John M. Clarke, and Charles Schuchert.
In Canada, through the work of the Geological Survey of the Dominion,
came the paleontologists Elkanah Billings and, later on, J. F. Whiteaves.
The “father of Canadian paleontology,” Sir William Dawson, who
developed independently, was active in all branches of the science and did
much to unravel the geology of eastern Canada. No organism has been
more discussed and more often rejected and accepted as a fossil than his
“dawn animal of Canada,” Eozoon canadense, first described in 1865. His
son, George M. Dawson, was one of the directors of the Geological Survey
of Canada. Finally the extensive paleontology of the Cambrian of Canada
was worked out by another self-made paleontologist, G. F. Matthew.
Paleobotany.—American paleobotany was developed during this, the
fourth period, through the state and national surveys, first in Leo
Lesquereux, a Swiss student induced by Agassiz to come to America, and in
J. S. Newberry. The second generation of paleobotanists is represented by
Lester F. Ward and W. N. Fontaine, and the third generation, the present
workers, includes F. H. Knowlton, David White, Arthur Hollick, and E. W.
Berry. A new line of paleobotanical work, the histology of woody but
pseudomorphous remains, has been developed by G. R. Wieland.
The grander results of the study of paleontology during the evolutionary
period may be summed up with the conclusions of Marsh:

“One of the main characteristics of this epoch is the belief that all life, living and extinct, has been
evolved from simple forms. Another prominent feature is the accepted fact of the great antiquity of
the human race. These are quite sufficient to distinguish this period sharply from those that preceded
it.”
Charles Darwin’s work at once aroused attention, and brought about in scientific thought a
revolution which “has influenced paleontology as extensively as any other department of science....
In the [previous period] species were represented independently by parallel lines; in the present
period, they are indicated by dependent, branching lines. The former was the analytic, the latter is the
synthetic period.”

Synthetic Period.—What is to be the next trend in paleontology? Clearly
it is to be the Synthetic period, one that Marsh in 1879 indicated in these
words: “But if we are permitted to continue in imagination the rapidly
converging lines of research pursued to-day, they seem to meet at the point
where organic and inorganic nature become one. That this point will yet be
reached, I cannot doubt.”
This Synthetic period, foreshadowed also in Herbert Spencer’s Synthetic
Philosophy, has not yet arrived, but before long another great leader will
appear. We have the prophecy of his coming in such books as The Fitness of
the Environment, by Lawrence J. Henderson, 1913; The Origin and Nature
of Life, by Benjamin Moore, 1913; The Organism as a Whole, by Jacques
Loeb, 1916; and The Origin and Evolution of Life, by Henry F. Osborn,
1917.
In all nature, inorganic and organic, there is continuity and consistency,
beauty and design. We are beginning to see that there are eternal laws, ever
interacting and resulting in progressive and regressive evolutions. The
realization of these scientific revelations kindles in us a desire for more
knowledge, and the grandest revelations are yet before us in the synthesis of
the sciences.

Notes.

3. For more detail in regard to these tillites and the older ones see Climates of Geologic Time,
by Charles Schuchert, being Chapter XXI in Huntington’s Climatic Factor as Illustrated in Arid
America, Publication No. 192 of the Carnegie Institution of Washington, 1914. Also Arthur P.
Coleman’s presidential address before the Geological Society of America in 1915, Dry Land in
Geology, published in the Society’s Bulletin, 27, 175, 1916.

III
A CENTURY OF GEOLOGY.—STEPS OF PROGRESS IN
THE INTERPRETATION OF LAND FORMS

By HERBERT E. GREGORY

The essence of physiography is the belief that land forms represent merely a
stage in the orderly development of the earth’s surface features; that the
various dynamic agents perform their characteristic work throughout all
geologic time. The formulation of principle and processes of earth sculpture
was, therefore, impossible on the hypothesis of a ready-made earth whose
features were substantially unchangeable, except when modified by
catastrophic processes. In 1821, J. W. Wilson wrote in the Journal: “Is it not
the best theory of the earth, that the Creator, in the beginning, at least at the
general deluge, formed it with all its present grand characteristic
features?”[4] If so, a search for causes is futile, and the study of the work
performed by streams and glaciers and wind is unprofitable. The belief in
the Deluge as the one great geological event in the history of the earth has
brought it about that the speculations of Aristotle, Herodotus, Strabo, and
Ovid, and the illustrious Arab, Avicenna (980–1037), unchecked by appeal
to facts but also unopposed by priesthood or popular prejudice, are nearer to
the truth than the intolerant controversial writings of the intellectual leaders
whose touchstone was orthodoxy. A few thinkers of the sixteenth century
revolted against the interminable repetition of error, and Peter Severinus
(1571) advised his students: “Burn up your books ... buy yourselves stout
shoes, get away to the mountains, search the valleys, the deserts, the shores
of the seas.... In this way and no other will you arrive at a knowledge of
things.” But the thoroughgoing “diluvialist” who believed that a million

species of animals could occupy a 450–foot Ark, but not that pebbles
weathered from rock or that rivers erode, had no use for his powers of
observation.
Sporadic germs of a science of land forms scattered through the literature
of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries found an unfavorable
environment and produced inconspicuous growths. Even their sponsors did
little to cultivate them. Steno (1631–1687) mildly suggested that surface
sculpturing, particularly on a small scale, is largely the work of running
water, and Guettard (1715–1786), a truly great mind, grasped the
fundamental principles of denudation and successfully entombed his views
as well as his reputation in scores of books and volumes of cumbrous
diffuse writing.
At the beginning of the nineteenth century a sufficient body of principles
had been established to justify the recognition of an earth science, geology,
and the 195 volumes of the Journal thus far published carry a large part of
the material which has won approval for the new science and given
prominence to American thought. From the pages in the Journal, the
progress of geology may be illustrated by tracing the fluctuation in the
development of fact and theory as relates to valleys and glacial features, the
subjects to which this chapter is devoted.

The Interpretation of Valleys.

The Pioneers.

Desmarest (1725–1815) might be styled the father of physiography. By
concrete examples and sound induction he established (1774) the doctrine
that the valleys of central France are formed by the streams which occupy
them. He also made the first attempt to trace the history of a landscape
through its successive stages on the basis of known causes. His methods
and reasoning are practically identical with those of Dutton working in the
ancient lavas of New Mexico; and Whitney’s description of the Table
Mountains of California might well have appeared in Desmarest’s memoirs.
[5]
The teachings of Desmarest were strengthened and expanded by
DeSaussure (1740–1799), the sponsor for the term, “Geology,” (1779) who
saw in the intimate relation of Alpine streams and valleys the evidence of
erosion by running water (1786).
The work of these acknowledged leaders of geological thought attracted
singularly little attention on the Continent, and Lamarck’s volume on
denudation (Hydrogéologie), which appeared in 1802, although an
important contribution, sank out of sight. But the seed of the French school
found fertile ground in Edinburgh, the center of the geological world during
the first quarter of the nineteenth century. Hutton’s “Theory of the Earth,
with Proofs and Illustrations,” in which the guidance of DeSaussure and
Desmarest is gratefully acknowledged, appeared in 1795. The original
publication aroused only local interest, but when placed in attractive form
by Playfair’s “Illustrations of the Huttonian Theory” (1802), the problem of
the origin and development of land forms assumed a commanding position
in geological thought. Hutton was peculiarly fortunate in his environment.
He had the support and assistance of a group of able scientific colleagues as
well as the bitter opposition of Jameson and of the defenders of orthodoxy.
His views were discussed in scientific publications and found their way to
literary and theological journals. Hutton’s conception of the processes of
land sculpture—slow upheaving and slow degradation of mountains,
differential weathering, and the carving of valleys by streams—has a very
modern aspect. Playfair’s book would scarcely be out of place in a
twentieth century class room. The following paragraphs are quoted from it:
[6]

“... A river, of which the course is both serpentine and deeply excavated in the rock, is among the
phenomena, by which the slow waste of the land, and also the cause of that waste, are most directly
pointed out.
The structure of the vallies among mountains, shews clearly to what cause their existence is to be
ascribed. Here we have first a large valley, communicating directly with the plain, and winding
between high ridges of mountains, while the river in the bottom of it descends over a surface,
remarkable, in such a scene, for its uniform declivity. Into this, open a multitude of transverse or
secondary vallies, intersecting the ridges on either side of the former, each bringing a contribution to
the main stream, proportioned to its magnitude; and, except where a cataract now and then
intervenes, all having that nice adjustment in their levels, which is the more wonderful, the greater
the irregularity of the surface. These secondary vallies have others of a smaller size opening into
them; and, among mountains of the first order, where all is laid out on the greatest scale, these
ramifications are continued to a fourth, and even a fifth, each diminishing in size as it increases in
elevation, and as its supply of water is less. Through them all, this law is in general observed, that
where a higher valley joins a lower one, of the two angles which it makes with the latter, that which
is obtuse is always on the descending side; ... what else but the water itself, working its way through
obstacles of unequal resistance, could have opened or kept up a communication between the
inequalities of an irregular and alpine surface....
... The probability of such a constitution [arrangement of valleys] having arisen from another
cause, is, to the probability of its having arisen from the running of water, in such a proportion as
unity bears to a number infinitely great.
... With Dr. Hutton, we shall be disposed to consider those great chains of mountains, which
traverse the surface of the globe, as cut out of masses vastly greater, and more lofty than any thing
that now remains.
From this gradual change of lakes into rivers, it follows, that a lake is but a temporary and
accidental condition of a river, which is every day approaching to its termination; and the truth of this
is attested, not only by the lakes that have existed, but also by those that continue to exist.”

Steps Backward.

Even Hutton’s clear reasoning, firmly buttressed by concrete examples,
was insufficient to overcome the belief in ready-made or violently formed
valleys and original corrugations and irregularities of mountain surface. The
pages of the Journal show that the principles laid down by Playfair were too
far in advance of the times to secure general acceptance. In the first volume
of the Journal, the gorge of the French Broad River is assigned by Kain to
“some dreadful commotion in nature which probably shook these
mountains to their bases,”[7] and the gorge of the lower Connecticut is
considered by Hitchcock (1824)[8] as a breach which drained a series of
lakes “not many centuries before the settlement of this country.” The
prevailing American and English view for the first quarter of the nineteenth
century is expressed in the reviews in this Journal, where the well-known
conclusions of Conybeare and Phillips that streams are incompetent to
excavate valleys are quoted with approval and admiration is expressed for
Buckland’s famous “Reliquiæ Diluvianæ,” a 300–page quarto volume
devoted to proof of a deluge. The professor at Yale, Silliman, and the
professor at Oxford, Buckland, saw that an acceptance of Hutton’s views
involved a repudiation of the Biblical flood, and much space is devoted to
combating these “erroneous” and “unscientific” views. For example,
Buckland says:[9]

“... The general belief is, that existing streams, avalanches and lakes, bursting their barriers, are
sufficient to account for all their phenomena, and not a few geologists, especially those of the
Huttonian school, at whose head is Professor Playfair, have till recently been of this opinion.... But it
is now very clear to almost every man, who impartially examines the facts in regard to existing
vallies, that the causes now in action, mentioned above, are altogether inadequate to their production;
nay, that such a supposition would involve a physical impossibility. We do not believe that one-
thousandth part of our present vallies were excavated by the power of existing streams.... In very
many cases of large rivers, it is found, that so far from having formed their own beds, they are
actually in a gradual manner filling them up.
Again; how happens it that the source of a river is frequently below the head of a valley, if the
river excavated that valley?
The most powerful argument, however, in our opinion, against the supposition we are combating,
is the phenomena of transverse and longitudinal valleys; both of which could not possibly have been
formed by existing streams.”

Phillips writes in 1829:[10] “The excavation of valleys can be ascribed to
no other cause than a great flood of water which overtopped the hills,
whose summits those vallies descend.”
Faith in Noah’s flood as the dominant agent of erosion rapidly lost
ground through the teaching of Lyell after 1830, but the theory of
systematic development of landscapes by rivers gained little. In fact, Scrope
in 1830,[11] in showing that the entrenched meanders of the Moselle prove
gradual progressive stream work, was in advance of his English
contemporary. Judged by contributions to the Journal, Lyell’s teaching
served to standardize American opinion of earth sculpture somewhat as
follows: The ocean is the great valley maker, but rivers also make them; the
position of valleys is determined by original or renewed surface inequalities
or by faulting; exceptional occurrences—earthquakes, bursting of lakes,
upheavals and depressions—have played an important part. Hayes (1839)[12]
thought that the surface of New York was essentially an upraised sea-
bottom modified by erosion of waves and ocean currents. Sedgwick (1838)
[13]
considered high-lying lake basins proof of valleys which were shaped
under the sea. Many of the valleys in the Chilian Cordillera were thought by
Darwin (1844) to have been the work of waves and tides, and water gaps
are ascribed to currents “bursting through the range at those points where
the strata have been least inclined and the height consequently is less.”
Speaking of the magnificent stream-cut canyons of the Blue Mountains of
New South Wales, gorges which lead to narrow exits through monoclines,
Darwin says: “To attribute these hollows to alluvial action would be
preposterous.”[14]
The influence of structure in the formation of valleys is emphasized by
many contributors to the Journal. Hildreth in 1836, in a valuable paper,[15]
which is perhaps the first detailed topographic description of drainage in
folded strata, expresses the opinion that the West Virginia ridges and valleys
antedated the streams and that water gaps though cut by rivers involve pre-
existing lakes. Geddes (1826)[16] denied that Niagara River cut its channel
and speaks of valleys which “were valleys e’er moving spirit bade the
waters flow.” Conrad (1839)[17] discussed the structural control of the
Mohawk, the Ohio, and the Mississippi, and Lieutenant Warren (1859)[18]
concluded that the Niobrara must have originated in a fissure. According to
Lesley (1862)[19] the course of the New River across the Great Valley and
into the Appalachians “striking the escarpment in the face” is determined by

the junction of anticlinal structures on the north with faulted monoclines
toward the south; a conclusion in harmony with the views of Edward
Hitchcock (1841)[17] that major valleys and mountain passes are structural in
origin and that even subordinate folds and faults may determine minor
features. “Is not this a beautiful example of prospective benevolence on the
part of the Deity, thus, by means of a violent fracture of primary mountains,
to provide for easy intercommunication through alpine regions, countless
ages afterwards!” The extent of the wandering from the guidance of
DeSaussure and Playfair after the lapse of 50 years is shown by students of
Switzerland. Alpine valleys to Murchison (1851) were bays of an ancient
sea; Schlaginweit (1852) found regional and local complicated crustal
movements a satisfactory cause, and Forbes (1863) saw only glaciers.

Valleys Formed by Rivers.

One strong voice before 1860 appears to have called Americans back to
truths expounded by Desmarest and Hutton. Dana in 1850[20] amply
demonstrated that valleys on the Pacific Islands owe neither their origin,
position or form to the sea or to structural factors. They are the work of
existing streams which have eaten their way headwards. Even the valleys of
Australia cited by Darwin as type examples of ocean work are shown to be
products of normal stream work. Dana went further and gave a permanent
place to the Huttonian idea that many bays, inlets, and fiords are but the
drowned mouths of stream-made valleys. In the same volume in which
these conclusions appeared, Hubbard (1850)[21] announced that in New
Hampshire the “deepest valleys are but valleys of erosion.” The theory that
valleys are excavated by streams which occupy them was all but universally
accepted after F. V. Hayden’s description[22] of Rocky Mountain gorges
(1862) and Newberry’s interpretation of the canyons of Arizona (1862); but
the scientific world was poorly prepared for Newberry’s statement:[23]

“Like the great canons of the Colorado, the broad valleys bounded by high and perpendicular walls
belong to a vast system of erosion, and are wholly due to the action of water.... The first and most
plausible explanation of the striking surface features of this region will be to refer them to that
embodiment of resistless power—the sword that cuts so many geological knots—volcanic force. The
Great Canon of the Colorado would be considered a vast fissure or rent in the earth’s crust, and the
abrupt termination of the steps of the table lands as marking lines of displacement. This theory
though so plausible, and so entirely adequate to explain all the striking phenomena, lacks a single
requisite to acceptance, and that is truth.”

With such stupendous examples in mind, the dictum of Hutton seemed
reasonable: “there is no spot on which rivers may not formerly have run.”

Denudation by Rivers.

The general recognition of the competency of streams to form valleys
was a necessary prelude to the broader view expressed by Jukes (1862)[24]

“The surfaces of our present lands are as much carved and sculptured surfaces as the medallion
carved from the slab, or the statue sculptured from the block. They have been gradually reached by
the removal of the rock that once covered them, and are themselves but of transient duration, always
slowly wasting from decay.”

Contributions to the Journal between 1850 and 1870 reveal a tendency to
accept greater degrees of erosion by rivers, but the necessary end-product of
subaërial erosion—a plain—is first clearly defined by Powell in 1875.[25] In
formulating his ideas Powell introduced the term “base-level,” which may
be called the germ word out of which has grown the “cycle of erosion,” the
master key of modern physiographers. The original definition of base-level
follows:

“We may consider the level of the sea to be a grand base-level, below which the dry lands cannot
be eroded; but we may also have, for local and temporary purposes, other base-levels of erosion,
which are the levels of the beds of the principal streams which carry away the products of erosion. (I
take some liberty in using the term ‘level’ in this connection, as the action of a running stream in
wearing its channel ceases, for all practical purposes, before its bed has quite reached the level of the
lower end of the stream. What I have called the base-level would, in fact, be an imaginary surface,
inclining slightly in all its parts toward the lower end of the principal stream draining the area
through which the level is supposed to extend, or having the inclination of its parts varied in direction
as determined by tributary streams.)”

Analysis of Powell’s view has given definiteness to the distinction
between “base-level,” an imaginary plane, and “a nearly featureless plain,”
the actual land surface produced in the last stage of subaërial erosion.
Following their discovery in the Colorado Plateau Province, denudation
surfaces were recognized on the Atlantic slope and discussed by McGee
(1888),[26] in a paper notable for the demonstration of the use of
physiographic methods and criteria in the solution of stratigraphic
problems. Davis (1889)[27] described the upland of southern New England

developed during Cretaceous time, introducing the term “peneplain,” “a
nearly featureless plain.” The short-lived opposition to the theory of
peneplanation indicates that in America at least the idea needed only
formulation to insure acceptance.
It is interesting to note that surfaces now classed as peneplains were fully
described by Percival (1842),[28] who assigned them to structure, and by
Kerr (1880),[29] who considered glaciers the agent. In Europe “plains of
denudation” have been clearly recognized by Ramsay (1846), Jukes (1862),
A. Geikie (1865), Foster and Topley (1865), Maw (1866), Wynne (1867),
Whitaker (1867), Macintosh (1869), Green (1882), Richthofen (1882), but
all of them were looked upon as products of marine work, and writers of
more recent date in England seem reluctant to give a subordinate place to
the erosive power of waves. Americans, on the other hand, have been
thinking in terms of rivers, and the great contribution of the American
school is not that peneplains exist, but that they are the result of normal
subaërial erosion. More precise field methods during the past decade have
revealed the fact that no one agent is responsible for the land forms classed
as peneplains; that not only rivers and ocean, but ice, wind, structure, and
topographic position must be taken into account.
The recognition of rivers as valley-makers and of the final result of
stream work necessarily preceded an analysis of the process of subaërial
erosion. The first and last terms were known, the intermediate terms and the
sequence remained to be established. A significant contribution to this
problem was made by Jukes (1862).[34]

“... I believe that the lateral valleys are those which were first formed by the drainage running
directly from the crests of the chains, the longitudinal ones being subsequently elaborated along the
strike of the softer or more erodable beds exposed on the flanks of those chains.”

Powell’s discussion of antecedent and consequent drainage (1875) and
Gilbert’s chapter on land sculpture in the Henry Mountain report (1880) are
classics, and McGee’s contribution[30] contains significant suggestions, but
the master papers are by Davis,[31] who introduces an analysis of land forms
based on structure and age by the statement:

“Being fully persuaded of the gradual and systematic evolution of topographical forms it is now
desired ... to seek the causes of the location of streams in their present courses; to go back if possible

to the early date when central Pennsylvania was first raised from the sea, and trace the development
of the several river systems then implanted upon it from their ancient beginning to the present time.”

That such a task could have been undertaken a quarter of a century ago
and to-day considered a part of everyday field work shows how completely
the lost ground of a half century has been regained and how rapid the
advance in the knowledge of land sculpture since the canyons of the
Colorado Plateau were interpreted.

Features Resulting from Glaciation.

The Problem Stated.

Early in the nineteenth century when speculation regarding the interior of
the earth gave place in part to observations of the surface of the earth,
geologists were confronted with perhaps the most difficult problem in the
history of the science. As stated by the editor of the Journal in 1821:[32]

“The almost universal existence of rolled pebbles, and boulders of rock, not only on the margin of
the oceans, seas, lakes, and rivers; but their existence, often in enormous quantities, in situations
quite removed from large waters; inland,—in high banks, embedded in strata, or scattered,
occasionally, in profusion, on the face of almost every region, and sometimes on the tops and
declivities of mountains, as well as in the vallies between them; their entire difference, in many
cases, from the rocks in the country where they lie—rounded masses and pebbles of primitive rocks
being deposited in secondary and alluvial regions, and vice versa; these and a multitude of similar
facts have ever struck us as being among the most interesting of geological occurrences, and as being
very inadequately accounted for by existing theories.”

The phenomena demanding explanation—jumbled masses of “diluvium,”
polished and striated rock, bowlders distributed with apparent disregard of
topography—were indeed startling. Even Lyell, the great exponent of
uniformitarianism, appears to have lost faith in his theories when
confronted with facts for which known causes seemed inadequate. The
interest aroused is attested by 31 titles in the Journal during its first two
decades, articles which include speculations unsupported by logic or fact,
field observation unaccompanied by explanation, field observation with
fantastic explanation, ex-cathedra pronouncements by prominent men,
sound reasoning from insufficient data, and unclouded recognition of cause
and effect by both obscure and prominent men. With little knowledge of
glaciers, areal geology, or of structure and composition of drift, all known
forces were called in: normal weathering, catastrophic floods, ocean
currents, waves, icebergs, glaciers, wind, and even depositions from a
primordial atmosphere (Chabier, 1823). Human agencies were not
discarded. Speaking of a granite bowlder at North Salem, New York,
described by Cornelius (1820)[33] as resting on limestone, Finch (1824)[34]
says: “it is a magnificent cromlech and the most ancient and venerable

monument which America possesses.” In the absence of a known cause,
catastrophic agencies seem reasonable.

The Deluge.

In the seventh volume of the Journal (1824)[35] we read:

“After the production of these regular strata of sand, clay, limestone, &c. came a terrible irruption
of water from the north, or northwest, which in many places covered the preceding formations with
diluvial gravel, and carried along with it those immense masses of granite, and the older rocks, which
attest to the present day the destruction and ruin of a former world.”

Another author remarks:

“We find a mantle as it were of sand and gravel indifferently covering all the solid strata, and
evidently derived from some convulsion which has lacerated and partly broken up those strata....”

The catastrophe favored by most geologists was floods of water violently
released—“we believe,” says the editor, “that all geologists agree in
imputing ... the diluvium to the agency of a deluge at one period or
another.”[36] Such conclusions rested in no small way upon Hayden’s well-
known treatise on surficial deposits (1821),[37] a volume which deserves a
prominent place in American geological literature. Hayden clearly
distinguished the topographic and structural features of the drift but found
an adequate cause in general wide-spread currents which “flowed
impetuously across the whole continent ... from north east to south west.” In
reviewing Hayden’s book Silliman remarks:

“The general cause of these currents Mr. Hayden concludes to be the deluge of Noah. While no
one will object to the propriety of ascribing very many, probably most of our alluvial features, to that
catastrophe, we conceive that neither Mr. Hayden, nor any other man, is bound to prove the
immediate physical cause of that vindictive infliction.
We would beg leave to suggest the following as a cause which may have aided in deluging the
earth, and which, were there occasion, might do it again.
The existence of enormous caverns in the bowels of the earth, (so often imagined by authors,)
appears to be no very extravagant assumption. It is true it cannot be proved, but in a sphere of eight
thousand miles in diameter, it would appear in no way extraordinary, that many cavities might exist,
which collectively, or even singly, might well contain much more than all our oceans, seas, and other
superficial waters, none of which are probably more than a few miles in depth. If these cavities
communicate in any manner with the oceans, and are (as if they exist at all, they probably are,) filled

with water, there exist, we conceive, agents very competent to expel the water of these cavities, and
thus to deluge, at any time, the dry land.”

The teachings of Hayden were favorably received by Hitchcock, Struder,
and Hubbard, and many Europeans. They found a champion in Jackson,
who states (1839):[38]

“From the observations made upon Mount Ktaadn, it is proved, that the current did rush over the
summit of that lofty mountain, and consequently the diluvial waters rose to the height of more than
5,000 feet. Hence we are enabled to prove, that the ancient ocean, which rushed over the surface of
the State, was at least a mile in depth, and its transporting power must have been greatly increased by
its enormous pressure.”

Gibson, a student of western geology, reaches the same conclusion
(1836):[39]

“That a wide-spread current, although not, as imagined, fed from an inland sea, once swept over
the entire region between the Alleghany and the Rocky Mountains is established by plenary proof.”

Professor Sedgwick (1831) thought the sudden upheaval of mountains
sufficient to have caused floods again and again. The strength of the belief
in the Biblical flood, during the first quarter of the 19th century, may be
represented by the following remarks of Phillips (1832):[40]

“Of many important facts which come under the consideration of geologists, the ‘Deluge’ is,
perhaps, the most remarkable; and it is established by such clear and positive arguments, that if any
one point of natural history may be considered as proved, the deluge must be admitted to have
happened, because it has left full evidence in plain and characteristic effects upon the surface of the
earth.”

However, the theory of deluges, whether of ocean or land streams, did
not hold the field unopposed. In 1823, Granger,[41] an observer whose
contributions to science total only six pages, speaks of the striæ on the
shore of Lake Erie as

“having been formed by the powerful and continued attrition of some hard body.... To me, it does
not seem possible that water under any circumstances, could have effected it. The flutings in width,

depth, and direction, are as regular as if they had been cut out by a grooving plane. This, running
water could not effect, nor could its operation have produced that glassy smoothness, which, in many
parts, it still retains.”

Hayes and also Conrad expressed similar views in the Journal 16 years
later.
The idea that ice was in some way concerned with the transportation of
drift has had a curious history. The first unequivocal statement, based on
reading and keen observation, was made in the Journal by Dobson in 1826:
[42]

“I have had occasion to dig up a great number of bowlders, of red sandstone, and of the
conglomerate kind, in erecting a cotton manufactory; and it was not uncommon to find them worn
smooth on the under side, as if done by their having been dragged over rocks and gravelly earth, in
one steady position. On examination, they exhibit scratches and furrows on the abraded part; and if
among the minerals composing the rock, there happened to be pebbles of feldspar, or quartz, (which
was not uncommon,) they usually appeared not to be worn so much as the rest of the stone,
preserving their more tender parts in a ridge, extending some inches. When several of these pebbles
happen to be in one block, the preserved ridges were on the same side of the pebbles, so that it is easy
to determine which part of the stone moved forward, in the act of wearing.
These bowlders are found, not only on the surface, but I have discovered them a number of feet
deep, in the earth, in the hard compound of clay, sand, and gravel....
I think we cannot account for these appearances, unless we call in the aid of ice along with water,
and that they have been worn by being suspended and carried in ice, over rocks and earth, under
water.”

In Dobson’s day the hypothesis of “gigantic floods,” “debacles,”
“resistless world-wide currents,” was so firmly entrenched that the voice of
the observant layman found no hearers, and a letter from Dobson to
Hitchcock written in 1837 and containing additional evidence and argument
remained unpublished until Murchison, in 1842,[43] paid his respects to the
remarkable work of a remarkable man.[44]

“I take leave of the glacial theory in congratulating American science in having possessed the
original author of the best glacial theory, though his name had escaped notice; and in recommending
to you the terse argument of Peter Dobson, a previous acquaintance with which might have saved
volumes of disputation on both sides of the Atlantic.”

Glaciers vs. Icebergs.

The glacial theory makes its way into geological literature with the
development of Agassiz (1837) of the views of Venetz (1833) and
Charpentier (1834), that the glaciers of the Alps once had greater extent.
The bold assumption was made that the surface of Europe as far south as
the shores of the Mediterranean and Caspian seas was covered by ice during
a period immediately preceding the present. The kernel of the present
glacial theory is readily recognizable in these early works, but it is wrapped
in a strange husk: it was assumed that the Alps were raised by a great
convulsion under the ice and that the erratics slid to their places over the
newly made declivities. The publication of the famous “Etudes sur les
Glaciers” (1840), remarkable alike for its clarity, its sound inductions, and
wealth of illustrations, brought the ideas of Agassiz more into prominence
and inaugurated a 30–years’ war with the proponents of currents and
icebergs. The outstanding objections to the theory were the requirement of a
frigid climate and the demand for glaciers of continental dimensions; very
strong objections, indeed, for the time when fossil evidence was not
available, the great polar ice sheets were unexplored, and the distinction
between till and waterlaid drift had not been established.
The glacial theory was cordially adopted by Buckland (1841)[45] and in
part by Lyell in England but viewed with suspicion by Sedgwick, Whewell,
and Mantell. In America the response to the new idea was immediate.
Hitchcock (1841)[46] concludes an able discussion with the statement: “So
remarkably does it solve most of the phenomena of diluvial action, that I
am constrained to believe its fundamental principles to be founded in truth.”
The theory formed the chief topic of discussion at the third and fourth
meetings of the Association of American Geologists and Naturalists (1842,
1843) under the lead of a committee on drift consisting of Emmons, W. B.
Rogers, Vanuxem, Nicollet, Jackson, and J. L. Hayes. The result of these
discussions was a curious reaction. Hitchcock complained that he “had been
supposed to be an advocate for the unmodified glacial theory, but he had
never been a believer in it,” and Jackson spoke for a number of men when
he stated:[47]

“This country exhibits no proofs of the glacial theory as taught by Agassiz but on the contrary the
general bearing of the facts is against that theory.... Many eminent men incautiously embraced the
new theory, which within two or three years from its promulgation, had been found utterly
inadequate, and is now abandoned by many of its former supporters.”

Out of this symposium came also the strange contribution of H. D.
Rogers (1844),[48] who cast aside the teachings of deduction and observation
and returned to the views of the Medievalists.

“If we will conceive, then, a wide expanse of waters, less perhaps than one thousand feet in depth,
dislodged from some high northern or circumpolar basin, by a general lifting of that region of
perhaps a few hundred feet, and an equal subsidence of the country south, and imagine this whole
mass converted by earthquake pulsations of the breadth which such undulations have, into a series of
stupendous and rapid-moving waves of translation, helped on by the still more rapid flexures of the
floor over which they move, and then advert to the shattering and loosening power of the tremendous
jar of the earthquake, we shall have an agent adequate in every way to produce the results we see, to
float the northern ice from its moorings, to rip off, assisted with its aid, the outcrops of the hardest
strata, to grind up and strew wide their fragments, to scour down the whole rocky floor, and,
gathering energy with resistance, to sweep up the slopes and over the highest mountains.”

Because of the prominence of their author, Rogers’s views exerted some
influence and seemingly received support from England through the
elaborate mathematic discussions of Whewell (1848), who considered the
drift as “irresistible proof of paroxysmal action,” and Hopkins (1852), who
contended for “currents produced by repeated elevatory movements.”
After his arrival in America (1846), Agassiz’s influence was felt, and his
paper on the erratic phenomena about Lake Superior (1850),[49] in which he
called upon the advocates of water-borne ice to point out the barrier which
caused the current to subside, produced a salutary effect; yet Desor (1852)
[50]
states that in the region described by Agassiz “the assumption [of a
general ice cap] is no longer admissible,” and that the bowlders on Long
Island “were transported on ice rafts along the sea shore and stranded on the
ridges and eminences which were then shoals along the coast.” Twenty
years of discussion were insufficient to establish the glacial theory either in
Europe or America. The consensus of opinion among the more advanced
thinkers in 1860 is expressed by Dana:[51]

“In view of the whole subject, it appears reasonable to conclude that the Glacier theory affords the
best and fullest explanation of the phenomena over the general surface of the continents, and

encounters the fewest difficulties. But icebergs have aided beyond doubt in producing the results
along the borders of the continents, across ocean-channels like the German Ocean and the Baltic, and
possibly over great lakes like those of North America. Long Island Sound is so narrow that a glacier
may have stretched across it.”

Papers in the Journal of 1860–70 show a prevailing belief in icebergs, but
the evidence for land ice was accumulating as the deposits became better
known, and in 1871 field workers speak in unmistakable tones:[52]

“It is still a mooted question in American geology whether the events of the Glacial era were due
to glaciers or icebergs.... American geologists are still divided in opinion, and some of the most
eminent have pronounced in favor of icebergs.
Since, then, icebergs cannot pick up masses tons in weight from the bottom of a sea, or give a
general movement southward to the loose material of the surface; neither can produce the abrasion
observed over the rocks under its various conditions; and inasmuch as all direct evidence of the
submergence of the land required for an iceberg sea over New England fails, the conclusion appears
inevitable that icebergs had nothing to do with the drift of the New Haven region, in the Connecticut
valley; and, therefore, that the Glacial era in central New England was a Glacier era.”

Matthew (1871)[53] reached the same conclusion for the Lower Provinces
of Canada. In spite of the increasing clarity of the evidence, the battle for
the glacial theory was not yet won. The remaining opponents though few in
number were distinguished in attainments. Dawson clung to the outworn
doctrine until his death in 1899.
An interesting feature of the history of glacial theories is the calculation
by Maclaren (1842)[54] that the amount of water abstracted from the seas to
form the hypothetical ice sheet would lower the ocean level 350 feet—an
early form of the glacial control hypothesis (see Daly[55]).

Extent of Glacial Drift.

By the middle of the nineteenth century, it was recognized that the
“drift,” whatever its origin, was not of world-wide extent. In America its
characteristic features were found best developed north of latitude 40
degrees; in Europe, the Alps, the Scottish Highlands, and Scandinavia were
recognized as type areas. The limits were unassigned, partly because the
field had not been surveyed, but largely because criteria for the recognition
of drift had not been established. The well-known hillocks and ridges of
“diluvium” and “alluvium” and “drift” of New Jersey and Ohio, and the
mounds of the Missouri Cotou elaborately described by Catlin (1840)[56]
bore little resemblance to the walls of unsorted rock which stand as
moraines bordering Alpine glaciers. The Orange sand of Mississippi was
included in the drift by Hilgard (1866),[57] and the gravels at Philadelphia by
Hall (1876).[58] Stevens (1873)[59] described trains of glacial erratics at
Richmond, Virginia, and William B. Rogers (1876)[60] accounts for certain
deposits in the Potomac, James, and Roanoke rivers by the presence of
Pleistocene ice tongues or swollen glacial rivers, and remarks: “It is highly
probable that glacial action had much to do with the original accumulation
of the rocky debris on the flanks of the Blue Ridge, and in the Appalachian
valleys beyond.” Kerr (1881)[61] referred the ancient erosion surface of the
Piedmont belt in North Carolina to glacial denudation, De la Beche
compared the drift of Jamaica with that of New England, and Agassiz
interpreted soils of Brazil as glacial.
The first detailed description and unequivocal interpretation of either
terminal or recessional moraines is from the pen of Gilbert (1871),[62]
geologist of the Ohio Survey. In discussing the former outlet of Lake Erie
through the Fort Wayne channel, Gilbert writes:

“The page of history recorded in these phenomena is by no means ambiguous. The ridges, or, more
properly, the ridge which determines the courses of the St. Joseph and St. Marys rivers is a buried
terminal moraine of the glacier that moved southwestward through the Maumee valley. The overlying
Erie Clay covers it from sight, but it is shadowed forth on the surface of that deposit, as the ground is
pictured through a deep and even canopy of snow. Its irregularly curved outline accords intimately
with the configuration of the valley, and with the direction of the ice markings; its concavity is turned
toward the source of motion; its greatest convexity is along the line of least resistance.

South of the St. Marys river are other and numerous moraines accompanied by glacial striæ. Their
character and courses have not yet been studied; but their presence carries the mind back to an epoch
of the cold period, when the margin of the icefield was farther south, and the glacier of the Maumee
valley was merged in the general mass. As the mantle of ice grew shorter—and, in fact, at every stage
of its existence—its margin must have been variously notched and lobed in conformity with the
contour of the country, the higher lands being first laid bare by the encroaching secular summer.
Early in the history of this encroachment the glacier of the Maumee valley constituted one of these
lobes, and has recorded its form in the two moraines that I have described.”

Three years after the recognition of moraines in the Maumee valley,
Chamberlin (1874)[63] showed that the seemingly disorganized mounds and
basins and ridges known as the Kettle range of Wisconsin is the terminal
moraine of the Green Bay glacier. At an earlier date (1864) Whittlesey
interpreted the kettles of the Wisconsin moraine as evidence of ice blocks
from a melting glacier and presented a map showing the “southern limit of
boulders and coarse drift.” In 1876 attention was called to the terminal
moraine of New England by G. Frederick Wright, who assigns the honor of
discovery to Clarence King.

With the observations of Gilbert, Chamberlin, and King in mind, the
terminal moraine was traced by various workers across the United States
and into Canada and the extent of glacial cover revealed. Following 1875
the pages of the Journal contain many contributions dealing with the origin
and structure of moraines, eskers, kames, and drumlins. Before 1890
twenty-eight papers on the glacial phenomena of the Erie and Ohio basin
alone had appeared. By 1900 substantial agreement had been reached
regarding the significant features of the drift, the outline history of the Great
Lakes had been written, and the way had been paved for stratigraphic

studies of the Pleistocene, which bulk large in the pages of the Journal for
the last two decades.

Epochs of Glaciation.

For a decade following the general acceptance of the glacial origin of
“diluvium,” the deposits were embraced as “drift” and treated as the
products of one long period of glacial activity, and throughout the
controversy of iceberg and glacier the unity of the glacial period was
unquestioned. Beds of peat and fossiliferous lacustrine deposits in
Switzerland, England, and in America and the recognition of an “upper”
and a “lower” diluvium by Scandinavian geologists suggested two epochs,
and as the examples of such deposits increased in number and it became
evident that the plant fossils represented forms demanding a genial climate
and that the phenomena were seen in many countries, the belief grew that
minor fluctuations or gradual recession of an ice sheet were inadequate to
account for the phenomena observed.
It is natural that this problem should have found its solution in America,
where the Pleistocene is admirably displayed, and where the State and
Federal surveys were actively engaged in areal mapping. In 1883
Chamberlin[64] presented his views under the bold title, “Preliminary Paper
on the Terminal Moraine of the Second Glacial Epoch,” and the existence
of deposits of two or more ice sheets and the features of interglacial periods
were substantially established by the interesting debate in the Journal led by
Chamberlin, Wright, Upham and Dana.[65] Contributions since 1895 have
been concerned with the degree rather than the fact of complexity, and
continued study has resulted in the general recognition of five glacial stages
in North America and four in Europe.

The Loess as a Glacial Deposit.

A curious side-product of the study of glaciation in North America is the
controversy over the origin of loess. The interest aroused is indicated by
scores of papers in American periodicals and State reports of the last quarter
of the 19th century—papers which bear the names of prominent geologists.
The “loess” in the valley of the Rhine had long been known, but the
subject assumed prominence by the publication in 1866 of Pumpelly’s
Travels in China.[66] Wide-spread deposits 200 to 1,000 feet thick were
described as very fine-grained yellowish earth of distinctive structure
without stratification but penetrated by innumerable tubes and containing
land or fresh-water shells. Pumpelly considered these deposits lacustrine, a
view which found general acceptance though combated by Kingsmill
(1871),[67] who argued for marine deposition. Baron Von Richthofen’s
classic on China, which appeared in 1877, amplifies the observations of
Pumpelly and marshals the evidence to support the hypothesis that the loess
is wind-laid both on dry land and within ancient salt lakes. The conclusions
of Von Richthofen were adopted by Pumpelly whose knowledge of the
Chinese deposits, supplemented by studies in Missouri, of which State he
was director of the Geological Survey in 1872–73, placed him in position to
form a correct judgment. He says:[68]

“Recognizing from personal observation the full identity of character of the loess of northern
China, Europe and the Missouri Valley, I am obliged to reject my own explanation of the origin of the
Chinese deposits, and to believe with Richthofen that the true loess, wherever it occurs, is a sub-
aerial deposit, formed in a dry central region, and that it owes its structure to the formative influence
of a steppe vegetation.
The one weak point of Richthofen’s theory is in the evident inadequacy of the current
disintegration as a source of material. When we consider the immense area covered by loess to
depths varying from 50 to 2,000 feet, and the fact that this is only the very finest portion of the
product of rock-destruction, and again that the accumulation represents only a very short period of
time, geologically speaking, surely we must seek a more fertile source of supply than is furnished by
the current decomposition of rock surface.
It seems to me that there are two important sources: I. The silt brought by rivers, many of them fed
by the products of glacial attrition flowing from the mountains into the central region. Where the
streams sink away, or where the lakes which receive them have dried up, the finer products of the
erosion of a large territory are left to be removed in dust storms.
II. The second ... source is the residuary products of a secular disintegration.”

The evidence presented by Pumpelly for the eolian origin of loess—
structure, texture, composition, fossil content and topographic position—is
complete, and to him belongs the credit for the correct interpretation of the
Mississippi valley deposits. Unfortunately his contribution came at a time
when the geologists of the central States were intent on tracing the paths
and explaining the work of Pleistocene glaciers, and the belief was strong
that loess was some phase of glacial work. Its position at the border of the
Iowan drift so obviously suggests a genetic relation that the fossil evidence
of steppe climate suggested by Binney in 1848[69] was minimized. Students
of Pleistocene geology in Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska, Missouri, although
less vigorous in expression, were substantially in agreement with Hilgard
(1879).[70] “The sum total of anomalous conditions required to sustain the
eolian hypothesis partakes strongly of the marvellous.” The last edition of
Dana’s Manual, 1894, and of LeConte’s Geology, 1896, the two most
widely used text-books of their time, oppose the eolian theory, and
Chamberlin, in 1897,[71] states: “the aqueous hypothesis seems best
supported so far as concerns the deposits of the Mississippi Valley and
western Europe” (p. 795). Shimek, in papers published since 1896 has
shown that aquatic and glacial conditions can not account for the loess
fossils, and the return to the views of Pumpelly that the loess was deposited
on land by the agency of wind in a region of steppe vegetation is now all
but universal.

Glacial Sculpture.

Within the present generation sculpture by glaciers has received much
attention and has involved a reconsideration of the ability of ice to erode
which in turn involves a crystallization of views of the mechanics of
moving ice. The evidence for glacier erosion has remained largely
physiographic and rests on a study of land forms. In fact, the inadequacy of
structural features or of river corrasion to account for flat-floored, steep-
walled gorges, hanging valleys, and many lake basins, rather than a
knowledge of the mechanics of ice has led to the present fairly general
belief that glaciers are powerful agents of rock sculpture. The details of the
process are not yet understood.
Erosion by glaciers enters the arena of active discussion in 1862–63. The
possibility had been suggested by Esmark (1827) and by Dana (1849) in the
description of fiords and by Hind (1855) with reference to the origin of the
Great Lakes. It appears full-fledged in Ramsay’s classic, which was
published simultaneously in England and in America.[72] The argument runs
as follows: There is a close association of ancient glaciers and lakes
especially in mountains; glaciers are amply able to erode; evidences of
faulting, special subsidence, river erosion, and marine erosion are absent
from the lake basins of Switzerland and Great Britain. To quote Ramsay:

“It required a solid body grinding steadily and powerfully in direct and heavy contact with and
across the rocks to scoop out deep hollows, the situations of which might either be determined by
unequal hardness of the rocks, by extra weight of ice in special places, or by accidental
circumstances, the clue to which is lost from our inability perfectly to reconstruct the original forms
of the glaciers.”
“I believe with the Italian geologists, that all that the glaciers as a whole effected was only slightly
to deepen these valleys and materially to modify their general outlines, and, further (a theory I am
alone responsible for), to deepen them in parts more considerably when, from various causes, the
grinding power of the ice was unusually powerful, especially where, as in the lowlands of
Switzerland, the Miocene strata are comparatively soft.”

Whittlesey (1864)[73] considered that the rock-bound lakes and narrow
bays near Lake Superior were partly excavated by ice. LeConte (1875)[74]

records some significant observations in a pioneer paper on glacier erosion
which has not received adequate recognition. He says:

“... I am convinced that a glacier, by its enormous pressure and resistless onward movement, is
constantly breaking off large blocks from its bed and bounding walls. Its erosion is not only a
grinding and scoring, but also a crushing and breaking. It makes by its erosion not only rock-meal,
but also large rock-chips.... Its erosion is a constant process of alternate rough hewing and planing.
If Yosemite were unique, we might suppose that it was formed by violent cataclysms; but Yosemite
is not unique in form and therefore probably not in origin. There are many Yosemites. It is more
philosophical to account for them by the regular operation of known causes. I must believe that all
these deep perpendicular slots have been sawn out by the action of glaciers; the peculiar verticality of
the walls having been determined by the perpendicular cleavage structure.”... A lake in Bloody
Canyon “is a pure rock basin scooped out by the glacier at this place.... These ridges [separating
Hope, Faith, and Charity valleys] are in fact the lips of consecutive lake basins scooped out by ice.
... Water tends to form deep V-shaped canons, while ice produces broad valleys with lakes and
meadows.... I know not how general these distinctions may be, but certainly the Coast range of this
State is characterized by rounded summits and ridges, and deep V-shaped canons, while the high
Sierras are characterized on the contrary by sharp, spire-like, comb-like summits, and broad valleys;
and this difference I am convinced is due in part at least to the action of water on the one hand, and
of ice on the other.”

King (1878)[75] assigned to glacial erosion a commanding position in
mountain sculpture. In regard to the Uintas, he says:

“Glacial erosion has cut almost vertically down through the beds carving immense amphitheatres
with basin bottoms containing numerous Alpine lakes.... Post-glacial erosion has done an absolutely
trivial work. There is not a particle of direct evidence, so far as I can see, to warrant the belief that
these U-shaped canons were given their peculiar form by other means than the actual ploughing
erosion of glaciers....”

These contributions from the Cordilleras corroborating the conclusions of
Ramsay (1862), Tyndall (1862), Jukes (1862), Hector (1863), Logan
(1863), Close (1870), and James Geikie (1875), made little impression. The
views of Lyell (1833), Ball (1863), J. W. Dawson (1864), Falconer (1864),
Studer (1864), Murchison (1864, 1870), Ruskin (1865), Rutimeyer (1869),
Whymper (1871), Bonney (1873), Pfaff (1874), Gurlt (1874), Judd (1876),
prevailed, and the conclusions of Davis in 1882[76] fairly expressed the
prevailing belief in Europe and in America:

“The amount of glacial erosion in the central districts has been very considerable, but not greatly
in excess of pre-glacial soils and old talus and alluvial deposits. Most of the solid rock that was

carried away came from ledges rather than from valleys; and glaciers had in general a smoothing
rather than a roughening effect. In the outer areas on which the ice advanced it only rubbed down the
projecting points; here it acted more frequently as a depositing than as an eroding agent.”

During the past quarter-century the cleavage in the ranks of geologists,
brought about by Ramsay’s classic paper, has remained. Fairchild and
others in America, Heim, Bonney, and Garwood in Europe argue for
insignificant erosion by glaciers; and Gannet, Davis, Gilbert, Tarr in
America followed by Austrian workers present evidence for erosion on a
gigantic scale. A perusal of the voluminous literature in the Journal and
elsewhere shows that the difference of opinion is in part one of terms, the
amount of erosion rather than the fact of erosion; it also arises from failure
to differentiate the work of mountain glaciers and continental ice sheets, of
Pleistocene glaciers and their present diminished representatives. The
irrelevant contribution of physicists has also made for confusion.
It is interesting to note that the criteria for erosion of valleys by glaciers
has long been established and by workers in different countries. Ramsay
(1862) in England outlined the problem and presented generalized
evidence. Hector (1863) in New Zealand pointed out the significance of
discordant drainage, the “hanging valleys” of Gilbert. The U-form, the
broad lake-dotted floor, and the presence of cirques and the process of
plucking were probably first described by LeConte (1873) in America. The
truncation of valley spurs by glaciers pointed out by Studer in the
Kerguelen Islands (1878) was used by Chamberlin (1883) as evidence of
glacial scouring.

Conclusion.

During the past century many principles of land sculpture have emerged
from the fog of intellectual speculation and unorganized observation and
taken their place among generally accepted truths. Many of them are no
longer subjects of controversy. Erosion has found its place as a major
geologic agent and has given a new conception of natural scenery. Lofty
mountains are no longer “ancient as the sun,” they are youthful features in
process of dissection; valleys and canyons are the work of streams and
glaciers; fiords are erosion forms; waterfalls and lakes are features in
process of elimination; many plains and plateaus owe their form and
position to long-continued denudation. Modern landscapes are no longer
viewed as original features or the product of a single agent acting at a
particular time, but as ephemeral forms which owe their present appearance
to their age and the particular forces at work upon them as well as to their
original structure.
It is interesting to note the halting steps leading to the present viewpoint,
to find that decades elapsed between the formulation of a theory or the
recording of significant facts and their final acceptance or rejection, and to
realize that the organization of principles and observations into a science of
physiography has been the work of the present generation. Progress has
been conditioned by a number of factors besides the intellectual ability of
individual workers.
The influence of locality is plainly seen. Convincing evidence of river
erosion was obtained in central France, the Pacific Islands, and the
Colorado Plateau—regions in which other causes were easily eliminated.
Sculpture by glaciers passed beyond the theoretical stage when the simple
forms of the Sierras and New Zealand Alps were described. The origin of
loess was first discerned in a region where glacial phenomena did not
obscure the vision. The complexity of the Glacial period asserted by
geologists of the Middle West was denied by eastern students. The work of
waves on the English coast impressed British geologists to such an extent
that plains of denudation and inland valleys were ascribed to ocean work.

In the establishment of principles, the friendly interchange of ideas has
yielded large returns. Many of the fundamental conceptions of earth
sculpture have come from groups of men so situated as to facilitate
criticism. It is impossible, even if desirable, to award individual credit to
Venetz, Charpentier, and Agassiz in the formulation of the glacial theory;
and the close association of Agassiz and Dana in New England and of
Chamberlin and Irving in Wisconsin was undoubtedly helpful in
establishing the theory of continental glaciation. From the intimate
companionship in field and laboratory of Hutton, Playfair and Hope, arose
the profound influence of the Edinburgh school, and the sympathetic
cooperation of Powell, Gilbert, and Dutton has given to the world its
classics in the genetic study of land forms.
The influence of ideas has been closely associated with clarity,
conciseness, and attractiveness of presentation. Hutton is known through
Playfair, Agassiz’s contributions to glacial geology are known to every
student, while Venetz, Charpentier, and Hugi are only names. Cuvier’s
discourses on dynamical geology were reprinted and translated into English
and German, but Lamarck’s “Hydrogéologie” is known only to book
collectors. The verbose works of Guettard, although carrying the same
message as Playfair’s “Illustrations” and Desmarest’s “Memoirs,” are
practically unknown, as is also Horace H. Hayden’s treatise (1821) on the
drift of eastern North America. It has been well said that the world-wide
influence of American physiographic teaching is due in no small part to the
masterly presentations of Gilbert and Davis.
It is surprising to note the delays, the backward steps, and the duplication
of effort resulting from lack of familiarity with the work of the pioneers.
Sabine says in 1864:[77]

“It often happens, not unnaturally, that those who are most occupied with the questions of the day
in an advancing science retain but an imperfect recollection of the obligations due to those who laid
the first foundations of our subsequent knowledge.”

The product of intellectual effort appears to be conditioned by time of
planting and character of soil as well as by quantity of seed. For example:
Erosion by rivers was as clearly shown by Desmarest as by Dana and
Newberry 50 years later. Criteria for the recognition of ancient fluviatile

deposits were established by James Deane in 1847 in a study of the
Connecticut Valley Triassic. Agassiz’s proof that ice is an essential factor in
the formation of till is substantially a duplication of Dobson’s observations
(1826).
The volumes of the Journal with their very large number of articles and
reviews dealing with geology show that the interpretation of land forms as
products of subaërial erosion began in France and French Switzerland
during the later part of the eighteenth century as a phase of the intellectual
emancipation following the Revolution. Scotland and England assumed the
leadership for the first half of the nineteenth century, and the first 100
volumes of the Journal show the profound influence of English and French
teaching. In America, independent thinking, early exercised by the few,
became general with the establishment of the Federal survey, the increase in
university departments, geological societies and periodicals, and has given
to Americans the responsibilities of teachers.

Bibliography.

(In the following list “this Journal” refers to the American Journal of
Science.)
4. Wilson, J. W., Bursting of lakes through mountains, this Journal, 3, 253, 1821.

5. Whitney, J. D., Progress of the Geological Survey of California, this Journal, 38, 263–264,
1864.

6. Playfair, John, Illustrations of the Huttonian theory of the earth, Edinburgh, 1802.

7. Kain, J. H., Remarks on the mineralogy and geology of northwestern Virginia and eastern
Tennessee, this Journal, 1, 60–67, 1819.

8. Hitchcock, Edward, Geology, etc., of regions contiguous to the Connecticut, this Journal, 7,
1–30, 1824.

9. Buckland, Wm., Reliquiæ diluvianæ, this Journal, 8, 150, 317, 1824.

10. Phillips, John, Geology of Yorkshire, this Journal, 21, 17–20, 1832.

11. Scrope, G. P., Excavation of valleys, Geol. Soc., London, No. 14, 1830.

12. Hayes, G. E., Remarks on geology and topography of western New York, this Journal, 35,
88–91, 1839.

13. Seventh Meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, this Journal,
33, 288, 1838.

14. Darwin, Charles, Geological observations on the volcanic islands and parts of South
America, etc., second part of the Voyage of the “Beagle,” during 1832–1836. London, 1844.

15. Hildreth, S. P., Observations, etc., valley of the Ohio, this Journal, 29, 1–148, 1836.

16. Geddes, James, Observations on the geological features of the south side of Ontario valley,
this Journal, 11, 213–218, 1826.

18. Warren, G. K., Preliminary report of explorations in Nebraska and Dakota, this Journal, 27,
380, 1859.

19. Lesley, J. P., Observations on the Appalachian region of southern Virginia, this Journal, 34,
review, 413–415, 1862.

17. Conrad, T. A., Notes on American geology, this Journal, 35, 237–251, 1839.

20. Dana, J. D., On denudation in the Pacific, this Journal, 9, 48–62, 1850.

——, On the degradation of the rocks of New South Wales and formation of valleys, this
Journal, 9, 289–294, 1850.

21. Hubbard, O. P., On the condition of trap dikes in New Hampshire an evidence and measure
of erosion, this Journal, 9, 158–171, 1850.

22. Hayden, F. V., Some remarks in regard to the period of elevation of the Rocky Mountains,
this Journal, 33, 305–313, 1862.

23. Newberry, J. S., Colorado River of the West, this Journal, 33, review, 387–403, 1862.

24. Jukes, J. B., Address to the Geological Section of the British Association at Cambridge,
Quart. Jour. Geol. Soc., 18, 1862, this Journal, 34, 439, 1862.

25. Powell, J. W., Exploration of the Colorado River of the West, 1875. For Powell’s
preliminary article see this Journal, 5, 456–465, 1873.

26. McGee, W. J., Three formations of the Middle Atlantic slope, this Journal, 35, 120, 328, 367,
448, 1888.

27. Davis, W. M., Topographic development of the Triassic formation of the Connecticut Valley,
this Journal, 37, 423–434, 1889.

28. Percival, J. G., Geology of Connecticut, 1842.

29. Kerr, W. C., Origin of some new points in the topography of North Carolina, this Journal,
21, 216–219, 1881.

30. McGee, W. J., The classification of geographic forms by genesis, Nat. Geogr. Mag., 1, 27–
36, 1888.

31. Davis, W. M., The rivers and valleys of Pennsylvania, Nat. Geogr. Mag., 1, 183–253, 1889.
——, The rivers of northern New Jersey with notes on the classification of rivers in general,
ibid., 2, 81–110, 1890.

32. Silliman, Benjamin, Notice of Horace H. Hayden’s geological essays, this Journal, 3, 49,
1821.

33. Cornelius, Elias, Account of a singular position of a granite rock, this Journal, 2, 200–201,
1820.

34. Finch, John, On the Celtic antiquities of America, this Journal, 7, 149–161, 1824.

35. Finch, John, Geological essay on the Tertiary formations in America, this Journal, 7, 31–43,
1824.

36. Conybeare and Phillips, Outlines of the geology of England and Wales, this Journal, 7, 210,
211, 1824.

37. Hayden, Horace H., Geological essays, 1–412, 1821, this Journal, 3, 47–57, 1821.

38. Jackson, C. T., Reports on the geology of the State of Maine, and on the public lands
belonging to Maine and Massachusetts, this Journal, 36, 153, 1839.

39. Gibson, J. B., Remarks on the geology of the lakes and the valley of the Mississippi, this
Journal, 29, 201–213, 1836.

40. Phillips, John, Geology of Yorkshire, this Journal, 21, 14–15, 1832.

41. Granger, Ebenezer, Notice of a curious fluted rock at Sandusky Bay, Ohio, this Journal, 6,
180, 1823.

42. Dobson, Peter, Remarks on bowlders, this Journal, 10, 217–218, 1826.

43. Murchison, R. I., Address at anniversary meeting of the Geological Society of London, this
Journal, 43, 200–201, 1842.

44. Peter Dobson (1784–1878) came to this country from Preston, England, in 1809 and
established a cotton factory at Vernon, Conn.

45. Buckland, W., On the evidence of glaciers in Scotland and the north of England, Proc.
London Geol. Soc., 3, 1841.

46. Hitchcock, Edward, First anniversary address before the Association of American
Geologists, this Journal, 41, 232–275, 1841.

47. Third annual meeting of the Association of American Geologists and Naturalists, this
Journal, 43, 154, 1842; Abstract of proceedings of the fourth session of the Association of American
Geologists and Naturalists, ibid., 45, 321, 1843.

48. Rogers, H. D., Address delivered before Association of American Geologists and
Naturalists, this Journal, 47, 275, 1844.

49. Agassiz, Louis, The erratic phenomena about Lake Superior, this Journal, 10, 83–101, 1850.

50. Desor, E., On the drift of Lake Superior, this Journal, 13, 93–109, 1852; Post-Pliocene of the
southern States, etc., 14, 49–59, 1852.

51. Dana, J. D., Manual of geology, 546, Philadelphia, 1863.

52. Dana, J. D., on the Quaternary, or post-Tertiary of the New Haven region, this Journal, 1, 1–
5, 1871.

53. Matthew, G. F., Surface geology of New Brunswick, this Journal, 2, 371–372, 1871.

54. Maclaren, Charles, The glacial theory of Prof. Agassiz, this Journal, 42, 365, 1842.

55. Daly, R. A., Problems of the Pacific Islands, this Journal, 41, 153–186, 1916.

56. Catlin, George, Account of a journey to the Côteau des Prairies, this Journal, 38, 138–146,
1840.

57. Hilgard, E. W., Remarks on the drift of the western and southern States and its relation to the
glacier and iceberg theories, this Journal, 42, 343–347, 1866.

58. Hall, C. E., Glacial phenomena along the Kittatinny or Blue Mountain, Pennsylvania, this
Journal, 11, review, 233, 1876.

59. Stevens, R. P., On glaciers of the glacial era in Virginia, this Journal, 6, 371–373, 1873.

60. Rogers, W. B., On the gravel and cobble-stone deposits of Virginia and the Middle States,
Proc. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist., 18, 1875; this Journal, 11, 60–61, 1876.

61. Kerr, W. C, Origin of some new points in the topography of North Carolina, this Journal, 21,
216–219, 1881.

62. Gilbert, G. K., On certain glacial and post-glacial phenomena of the Maumee valley, this
Journal, 1, 339–345, 1871.

63. Chamberlin, T. C., On the geology of eastern Wisconsin, Geol. of Wisconsin, 2, 1877; this
Journal, 15, 61, 406, 1878.

64. Chamberlin, T. C, Preliminary paper on the terminal moraine of the second glacial epoch, U.
S. Geol. Survey, Third Ann. Rept., 291–402, 1883.

65. Wright, G. F., Unity of the glacial epoch, this Journal, 44, 351–373, 1892.
Upham, Warren, The diversity of the glacial drift along its boundary, ibid., 47, 358–365, 1894.
Wright, G. F., Theory of an interglacial submergence in England, ibid., 43, 1–8, 1892.
Chamberlin, T. C., Diversity of the glacial period, ibid., 45, 171–200, 1983
Dana, J. D., On New England and the upper Mississippi basin in the glacial period, ibid., 46,
327–330, 1893.
Wright, G. F., Continuity of the glacial period, ibid., 47, 161–187, 1894.
Chamberlin, T. C. and Leverett, F., Further studies of the drainage features of the upper Ohio
basin, ibid., 47, 247–282, 1894.

66. Pumpelly, Raphael, Geological researches in China, Japan, and Mongolia, Smithsonian
Contributions, No. 202, 1866.

67. Kingsmill, T. W., The probable origin of “loess” in North China and eastern Asia, Quart.
Jour. Geol. Soc., 27, No. 108, 1871.

68. Pumpelly, Raphael, The relation of secular rock-disintegration to loess, glacial drift and rock
basins, this Journal, 17, 135, 1879.

69. Binney, A., Some geologic features at Natchez on the Mississippi River, Proc. Boston Soc.
Nat. Hist., 2, 126–130, 1848.

70. Hilgard, E. W., The loess of Mississippi Valley, and the eolian hypothesis, this Journal, 18,
106–112, 1879.

71. Chamberlin, T. C, Supplementary hypothesis respecting the origin of the loess of the
Mississippi Valley, Jour. Geol., 5, 795–802, 1897.

72. Ramsay, A. C., On the glacial origin of certain lakes in Switzerland, the Black Forest, Great
Britain, Sweden, North America, and elsewhere, Quart. Jour. Geol. Soc., 1862; this Journal, 35, 324–
345, 1863. Preliminary statements of this theory appeared in 1859 and 1860.

73. Whittlesey, Charles, Smithsonian Contributions, No. 197, 1864.

74. LeConte, Joseph, On some of the ancient glaciers of the Sierras, this Journal, 5, 325–342,
1873, 10, 126–139, 1875.

75. King, Clarence, U. S. Geol. Expl. 40th Par., 1, 459–529, 1878.

76. Davis, W. M., Glacial erosion, Proc. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist., 22, 58, 1882.

77. Sabine, Sir Edward, Address of the president of the Royal Society, this Journal, 37, 108,
1864.

IV
A CENTURY OF GEOLOGY.—THE GROWTH OF
KNOWLEDGE OF EARTH STRUCTURE

By JOSEPH BARRELL

Introduction
The Intellectual Viewpoint in 1818.

In 1818, the year of the founding of the Journal, the natural sciences were
still in their infancy in Europe. Geology was still subordinate to mineralogy,
was hardly recognized as a distinct science, and consisted in little more than
a description of the character and distribution of minerals and rocks.
America was remote from the Old World centers of learning. The energy of
the young nation was absorbed in its own expansion, and but a few of those
who by aptitude were fitted to increase scientific knowledge were even
conscious of the existence of such a field of endeavor. Under these
circumstances the educative field open to a journal of science in the United
States was an almost virgin soil. Original contributions could most readily
be based upon the natural history of the New World, and the founder of the
Journal showed insight appreciative of the situation in stating in the “Plan
of the Work” in the introduction to the first volume that “It will be a leading
object to illustrate American Natural History, and especially our
Mineralogy and Geology.”
At this time educated people were still satisfied that the whole knowledge
of the origin and development of the earth so far as man could or should
know it was embraced in the Book of Genesis. They were inclined to look

with misgiving at attempts to directly interrogate the earth as to its history.
Philosophers such as Descartes and Liebnitz, the cosmogonists de Maillet
and Buffon had been less instrumental in developing science than in fitting
a few facts and many speculations to their systems of philosophy. By the
opening of the nineteenth century, however, men of learning were coming
to appreciate that the way to advance science was to experiment and
observe, to collect facts and discourage unfounded speculation. Silliman’s
insight into the needs of geologic science is shown in the following
quotation (1, pp. 6, 7, 1818):

“Our geology, also, presents a most interesting field of inquiry. A grand outline has recently been
drawn by Mr. Maclure, with a masterly hand, and with a vast extent of personal observation and
labour: but to fill up the detail, both observation and labour still more extensive are demanded; nor
can the object be effected, till more good geologists are formed, and distributed over our extensive
territory.
To account for the formation and changes of our globe, by excursions of the imagination, often
splendid and imposing, but usually visionary, and almost always baseless, was, till within half a
century, the business of geological speculations; but this research has now assumed a more sober
character; the science of geology has been reared upon numerous and accurate observations of facts;
and standing thus upon the basis of induction, it is entitled to a rank among those sciences which
Lord Bacon’s Philosophy has contributed to create. Geological researches are now prosecuted by
actually exploring the structure and arrangement of districts, countries, and continents. The obliquity
of the strata of most rocks, causing their edges to project in many places above the surface; their
exposure, in other instances on the sides or tops of hills and mountains; or, in consequence of the
intersection of their strata, by roads, canals, and river-courses, or by the wearing of the ocean; or their
direct perforation, by the shafts of mines; all these causes, and others, afford extensive means of
reading the interior structure of the globe.
The outlines of American geology appear to be particularly grand, simple, and instructive; and a
knowledge of the important facts, and general principles of this science, is of vast practical use, as
regards the interests of agriculture, and the research for useful minerals. Geological and
mineralogical descriptions, and maps of particular states and districts, are very much needed in the
United States; and to excite a spirit to furnish them will form one leading object of this Journal.”

The Prolonged Influence of Outgrown Ideas.
Those interested in any branch of science should, as a matter of
education, read the history of that special subject. A knowledge of the
stages by which the present development has been attained is essential to
give a proper perspective to the literature of each period. Much of the
existing terminology is an inheritance from the first attempts at
nomenclature, or may rest upon theories long discarded. Popular notions at
variance with advanced teaching are often the forgotten inheritance of a
past generation.
Gneiss, trap, and Old Red Sandstone are names which we owe to Werner.
The “Tertiary period” and “drift” are relics of an early terminology. The
geology of tourist circulars still speaks of canyons as made by “convulsions
of nature.” Popular writers still attribute to geologists a belief in a molten
earth covered by a thin crust. Within the present century the eighteenth
century speculations of Werner and his predecessors, postulating a supposed
capacity of water to seep through the crust into the interior of the earth,
resulting in a hypothetical progressive desiccation of the surface, views
long abandoned by most modern geologists, have been revived by an
astronomer into a theory of “planetology.”
A review of the literature of a century brings to light certain tendencies in
the growth of science. Each decade has witnessed a larger accumulation of
observed facts and a fuller classification of these fundamental data, but the
pendulum of interpretative theory swings away from the path of progress,
now to one side, now to the other, testing out the proper direction. For
decades the understanding of certain classes of facts may be actually
retrogressive. A retrospect shows that certain minds, keen and unfettered by
a prevailing theory, have in some directions been in advance of their
generation. But the judgment of the times had not sufficient basis in
knowledge for the separation and acceptance of their truer views from the
contemporaneous tangle of false interpretations.
An interesting illustration of these statements regarding the slow settling
of opinion may be cited in regard to the significance of the dip of the
Triassic formations of the eastern United States. The strata of the

Massachusetts-Connecticut basin possess a monoclinal easterly dip which
averages about 20 degrees to the east. Those of the New Jersey-
Pennsylvania-Virginia basin possess a similar dip to the northwest. Both
basins are cut by great faults and the dip is now accepted by practically all
geologists as due to rotation of the crust blocks away from a geanticlinal
axis between the two basins. Edward Hitchcock, whose work from the first
shows an interpretative quality in advance of his time, states in 1823 (6,74)
regarding the dip of the Connecticut valley rocks:

“There is reason to believe that Mount Toby, the strata of which are almost horizontal, exhibits the
original dip of these rocks, and that those cases in which they are more highly inclined are the result
of some Plutonian convulsion. Such irregularity in the dip of coal fields is no uncommon
occurrence.”

In Hitchcock’s Geology of Massachusetts, published in 1833, ten years
later, geological structure sections of the Connecticut Valley rocks are
given, the facts are discussed in detail and the dip ascribed to the elevatory
forces. He says (l. c., pp. 213, 223):

“If it were possible to doubt that the new red sandstone formation was deposited from water, the
surface of some of the layers of this shale would settle the question demonstrably. For it exhibits
precisely those gentle undulations, which the loamy bottom of every river with a moderate current,
presents. (No. 198.) But such a surface could never have been formed while the layers had that high
inclination to the horizon, which many of them now present: so that we have here, also, decisive
evidence that they have been elevated subsequently to their deposition....
The objection of a writer in the American Journal of Science, that such a height of waters as would
deposit Mount Toby, must have produced a lake nearly to the upper part of New Hampshire, in the
Connecticut Valley, and thus have caused the same sandstone to be produced higher up that valley
than Northfield, loses its force, when it is recollected that this formation was deposited before its
strata were elevated. For the elevating force undoubtedly changed the relative level of different parts
of the country. In this case, the disturbing force must have acted beneath the primary rocks. And
besides, we have good evidence which will be shown by and by, that our new red sandstone was
formed beneath the ocean. We cannot then reason on this subject from present levels.”

Courtesy of Popular Science Monthly.

In 1840, H. D. Rogers, a geologist who has acquired a more widely
known name than Hitchcock, but who in reality showed an inferior ability
in interpretation, made the following statements in explanation of the
regional monoclinal dip of the New Jersey Triassic rocks averaging 15 to 20
degrees to the northwest:[78]

“Their materials give evidence of having been swept into this estuary, or great ancient river, from
the south and southeast, by a current producing an almost universal dip of the beds towards the
northwest, a feature clearly not caused by any uplifting agency, but assumed originally at the time of

their deposition, in consequence of the setting of the current from the opposite or southeastern
shore.”

In 1842, at the third annual meeting of the Association of American
Geologists both H. D. and W. B. Rogers argued (43, 170, 1842) against Sir
Charles Lyell and E. Hitchcock that the present dip of the Triassic was the
original slope of deposition, stating among other reasons that the footprints
impressed upon the sediments often showed a slipping and a pushing of the
soft clay in the direction of the downhill slope. In 1858 H. D. Rogers still
held to the same views of original dip,[79] notwithstanding that a moderate
amount of observation on the mud-cracked and rain-pitted layers would
have supplied the proof that such must have dried as horizontal surfaces.
The idea of inclined deposition is not yet wholly dead as it has been
suggested more than once within the present generation as a means of
escaping from the necessity of accepting the very great thicknesses of this
and similar formations. Thus, as Brögger has remarked in another
connection,—the ghosts of the old time stand ever ready to reappear.
In the present essay on the rise of structural geology as reflected through
a century of publication in the Journal, attention will be given especially to
two fields, that of structures connected with igneous rocks and that of
structures connected with mountain making, and emphasis will be placed
upon the growth of understanding rather than upon the accumulating
knowledge of details. The growth in both of these divisions of structural
geology is well illustrated in the volumes of the Journal.

Structures and Relationships of Igneous Rocks.

Opposed Interpretations of Plutonists and Neptunists.

During the first quarter of the nineteenth century the geologic
controversy between the Plutonists and Neptunists was at its height; the
Plutonists, following the Scotchman, Hutton, holding to the igneous origin
of basalt and granite, the Neptunists, after their German master, Werner of
Freiberg, maintaining that these rocks had been precipitated from a
primitive universal ocean. The Plutonists, although time has shown them to
have been correct in all essential particulars, were for a generation
submerged under the propaganda carried forward by the disciples of
Werner. The “Illustrations of the Huttonian Theory of the Earth,” a
remarkable classic, worthy of being studied to-day as well as a century ago,
was published in 1802 by John Playfair, professor of mathematics in the
University of Edinburgh and a friend of Hutton, who had died five years
previously. This volume was opposed by Robert Jameson, professor of
natural philosophy in the same university, who had absorbed the ideas of
the German school while at Freiberg and published in 1808 a volume on the
“Elements of Geognosy,” in which the philosophy of Werner is followed
throughout and even obsidian and pumice are argued to be aqueous
precipitates. The authority of the Wernerian autocracy caused its
nomenclature to be adopted in the new world, but strong evidence against
its interpretations was to be found in the actual structural relations displayed
by the igneous rocks.

Contributions on Volcanic and Intrusive Rocks.

The accumulation and study of facts constituted the best cure for an
erroneous theory. The publications of the Journal contributed toward this
end by articles along several lines. The most original contributions were
those which dealt with the areal and structural geology of eastern North
America, but equally valuable at that time for the broadening of scientific
interest were the studies on the volcanic activities of the Hawaiian Islands,
published through many years. Perhaps most valuable from the educative
standpoint were the extensive republications in the Journal of the more
important European researches, making them accessible to American
readers. In volume 13 (1828), for example, a digest of Scrope’s work on
volcanoes is given, covering forty pages; and of Daubeny on active and
extinct volcanoes, running over seventy-five pages and extending into vol.
14. Through these comprehensive studies the nature of volcanic action
became generally understood during the first half of the nineteenth century
and the original publications in the Journal were valuable in giving a
knowledge of the activities of the Hawaiian volcanoes.
Early in the nineteenth century the whole of America still remained to be
explored by the geologist. The regions adjacent to the centers of learning
were among the first to receive attention and the Triassic basin of
Connecticut and Massachusetts yielded information in regard to the nature
of igneous intrusion. This basin, of unmetamorphic shales and sandstones,
is occupied by the Connecticut River except at its southern end. The
Formation contains within it sills, dikes, and outflows of basaltic rocks
which because of their superior resistance to erosion constitute prominent
hills, in places bounded by cliffs.
Silliman in 1806[80] described East Rock, New Haven, Connecticut, as a
whinstone, trap, or basalt, and accounted for its presence on the supposition
that it had

“actually been melted in the bowels of the earth and ejected among the superior strata by the force
of subterraneous fire, but never erupted like lava, cooling under the pressure of the superincumbent
strata and therefore compact or nonvesicular, its present form being due to erosion.”

In these conclusions Silliman was correct. With but a limited amount of
experience he was able to discriminate between the intrusive and effusive
rocks and saw that the prominence of this hill was due to the erosion of the
sediments which once surrounded it.
An extensive paper on the geology of this region was published by
Edward Hitchcock in 1823,[81] then just thirty years of age. This paper
shows the evidence of extensive field observations, and his comments in
regard to the trap and granite are of interest. Hitchcock gives five pages to
the subject of “Greenstone Dykes in Old Red Sandstone” (6, 56–60, 1823)
and makes the following statements:

“Professor Silliman conducted me to an interesting locality of these in East-Haven. They occur on
the main road from New-Haven to East-Haven, less than half a mile from Tomlinson’s bridge ... (p.
56).
They are an interesting feature in our geology, and deserve more attention; and it is peculiarly
fortunate that they should be situated so near a geological school and the first mineral cabinet in our
country ... (p. 58).

Origin of Greenstone.
Does the greenstone of the Connecticut afford evidence in favour of the Wernerian or of the
Huttonian theory of its origin? Averse as I feel to taking a side in this controversy, I cannot but say,
that the man who maintains, in its length and breadth, the original hypothesis of Werner in regard to
the aqueous deposition of trap, will find it for his interest, if he wishes to keep clear of doubts, not to
follow the example of D’Aubuisson, by going forth to examine the greenstone of this region, lest,
like that geologist, he should be compelled, not only to abandon his theory, but to write a book
against it. Indeed, when surveying particular portions of this rock, I have sometimes thought
Bakewell did not much exaggerate when he said in regard to Werner’s hypothesis, that, ‘it is hardly
possible for the human mind to invent a system more repugnant to existing facts.’
On the other hand, the Huttonian would doubtless have his heart gladdened, and his faith
strengthened by a survey of the greater part of this rock. As he looked at the dikes of the old red
sandstone, he would almost see the melted rock forcing its way through the fissures; and when he
came to the amygdaloidal, especially to that variety which resembles lava, he might even be tempted
to apply his thermometer to it, in the suspicion that it was not yet quite cool ... (p. 59).
By treating the subject in this manner I mean no disrespect to any of the distinguished men who
have adopted either side of this question. To President Cooper especially, who regards the greenstone
of the Connecticut as volcanic, I feel much indebted for the great mass of facts he has collected on
the subject. And were I to adopt any hypothesis in regard to the origin of our greenstone, it would be
one not much different from his” (p. 60).

By 1833 and more clearly in 1841 Hitchcock had come to recognize the
distinction between intrusive and extrusive basaltic sheets in the
Connecticut valley. Dawson also came to regard the Acadian sheets as
extrusive, and Emerson in 1882 recalled again the evidence for
Massachusetts (24, 195, 1882). Davis, however, went a step further and by
applying distinctive criteria not only separated intrusive and extrusive
sheets throughout the whole Triassic area, but by using basalt flows as
stratigraphic horizons unraveled for the first time the system of faults which
cut the Triassic system. His preliminary paper (24, 345, 1882) was followed
by many others.
From 1880 onward begins the period of precise structural field work. The
older geologists mostly conceived their work after reconnaissance methods.
From 1870 to 1880 a group of younger men entered geology who paid close
attention to the solid geometry and mechanics of earth structures. In their
hands physical and dynamical geology began to assume the standing of a
precise and quantitative science. In the field of intrusive rocks the opening
classic was by Gilbert, who in his volume on the geology of the Henry

Mountains, published in 1880, made laccoliths known to the world. With
the beginning of this new period we may well leave the subject of intrusive
rocks and turn to the progress of knowledge in regard to those deeper and
vaster bodies now known as batholiths. These, since erosion does not
expose their bottoms, Daly separates from intrusives and classifies as
subjacent. The batholiths consist typically of granite and granodiorite, and
introduce us to the problem of granite.

Views on the Structural Relations of Granite.

Conscientious field observations were sufficient to establish the true
nature of the intrusive and extrusive rocks. The case was very different,
however, with the nature and relations of the great bodies of granite, which
may be taken in the structural sense as including all the visibly crystalline
acidic and intermediate rocks, known more specifically as granite, syenite,
and diorite.
The large bodies of granite, structurally classified as stocks, or batholiths,
commonly show wedges, tongues, or dike networks cutting into the
surrounding rocks. The relations, however, are not all so simple as this.
Granites may cover vast areas, they are usually the older rocks, they are
generally associated with regional metamorphism of the intruded
formations, which metamorphism is now understood to be due chiefly to
the heat and mineralizers given off from the granite magma, associated with
mashing and shearing of the surrounding rocks. The granite was often
injected in successive stages which alternated with the stages of regional
mashing. A parallel or gneissic structure is thus developed which is in part
due to mashing, in part to igneous injection. Where the ascent of heat into
the cover is excessive, or where blocks are detached and involved in the
magma, the latter may dissolve some of the older cover rocks, even where
these were of sedimentary origin.
Thus between mashing, injection, and assimilation the genetic
relationships of a batholith to its surroundings are in many instances
obscure. Nevertheless, attention to the larger relations shows that the molten
magma originated at great depths in the earth’s crust, far below the bottoms
of geosynclines, and consists of primary igneous material, not of fused
sediments. From those depths it has ascended by various processes into the
outer crust, where it crystallized into granite masses, to be later exposed by
erosion. The amount of material which can be dissolved and assimilated
must be small in comparison with the whole body of the magma. The
original composition of the magma was probably basic, nearer that of a
basalt than that of a granite. Differentiation of the molten mass is thought to
cause the upper and lower parts of the chamber to become unlike, the
lighter and more acidic portion giving rise to the great bodies of granite.

With the exception of certain border zones the whole, however, is regarded
as igneous rock risen from the depths.
The complex border relations, but more particularly certain academic
hypotheses, led to a period of misunderstanding and retrogression in regard
to the nature of granites. It constitutes an interesting illustration of the
possibility of a wrong theory leading interpretation astray, chiefly through
the magnification of minor into major factors. This history illustrates the
dangers of qualitative science as compared to quantitative, of a single
hypothesis as matched against the method of multiple working hypothesis.
This flux of opinion in regard to the nature of granites may be traced
through the volumes of the Journal.
E. Hitchcock in 1824 (6, 12) noted that in places granite appeared
bedded, but in other places existed in veins which cut obliquely across the
strata. Silliman, although careful not to deny the aqueous origin of some
basalts, yet held that the field evidence of New England indicates for that
region the igneous or Huttonian origin of trap and granite (7, 238, 1824).
In 1832 the following article by Hitchcock appeared in the Journal (22, 1,
70):

Report on the Geology of Massachusetts; examined under the direction of the Government of that
State, during the years 1830 and 1831; by Edward Hitchcock, Prof. of Chemistry and Natural History
in Amherst College.
A footnote adds that this is “published in this Journal by consent of the Government of
Massachusetts, and intended to appear also in a separate form, and to be distributed among the
members of the Legislature of the same State, about the time of its appearance in this work. It is, we
believe, the first example in this country, of the geological survey of an entire State.”

This article includes a geological map of the state and covers the subject
of economic geology. The report brought forth the following remarks from
a French reviewer in the Revue Encyclopédique, Aug. 1832, quoted in the
Journal (23, 389, 1833):

“A single glance at this report, is sufficient to convince any one of the utility of such a work, to the
state which has undertaken it; and to regret that there is so very small a part of the French territory,
whose geological constitution is as well known to the public, as is now the state of Massachusetts.
France has the greater cause to regret her being distanced in this race by America, from her having a
corps of mining engineers, who if they had the means, would, in a very short time furnish a work of
the same kind, still more complete, of each of the departments.”

The complete report published in 1833 is a work of 700 pages. Pages 465
to 517 are devoted to the subject of granite. Numerous detailed sketches are
given showing contact relations. Nine pages are given to theoretical
considerations and many lines of proof are given that granite is an igneous
rock, molten from the internal heat of the earth, and intruded into the
sedimentary strata. His statement is the clearest published in the world, so
far as the writer is aware, up to that date, and marks Edward Hitchcock as
one of the leading geologists of his generation in Europe as well as
America. Unfortunately his views were largely lost to sight during the
following generation.
In 1840 the first American edition of Mantell’s Wonders of Geology gave
currency to the idea that granite is proved to be of all geological ages up to
the Tertiary (39, 6, 1840). In 1843 J. D. Dana pointed out (45, 104) that
schistosity was no evidence of sedimentary origin. He regarded most
granites as igneous as shown by their structural relations, but considers that
some may have had a sedimentary origin.

Rise and Decline of the Metamorphic Theory of Granite.

Up to 1860 granite was regarded on the basis of the facts of the field as
essentially an intrusive rock, but gneiss as a metamorphic product mostly of
sedimentary origin. It seemed as though sound methods of research and
interpretation were securely established. Nevertheless, a new era of
speculation and a modified Wernerism arose at that time with a paper by T.
Sterry Hunt, marking a retrogression in the theory of granite which lasted
until his death in 1892.
In November, 1859, Hunt read before the Geological Society of London a
paper on “Some Points in Chemical Geology” in which he announced that
igneous rocks are in all cases simply fused and displaced sediments, the
fusion taking place by the rise of the earth’s internal heat into deeply buried
and water-soaked masses of sediments (see 30, 133, 1860). The germ of this
idea of aqueo-igneous fusion was far older, due to Babbage and John
Herschel, neither of them geologists, but such sweeping extensions of it had
never before been published. Hunt had the advantage of a wide
acquaintanceship with geological literature and chemistry. He wrote
plausibly on chemical and theoretical geology, but his views were not
controlled by careful field observations. In fact he wrote confidently on
regions which apparently he had never seen and where a limited amount of
field work would have shown him to have been fundamentally in error. A
man of egotistical temperament, he sought to establish priority for himself
in many subjects and in order to cover the field made many poorly founded
assertions. Building on to another Wernerian idea, he held that many
metamorphic minerals had a chronologic value comparable to fossils—
staurolite for example indicating a pre-Silurian age—and on this basis
divided the crystalline rocks into five series. Although there is much of
value buried in Hunt’s work it is difficult to disentangle it, with the result
that his writings were a disservice to the science of geology. Although
carrying much weight in his lifetime, they have passed with his death nearly
into oblivion.
Marcou, with a limited knowledge of American geology, and but little
respect for the opinions of others, had published a geologic map of the
United States containing gross errors. In support of his views he read in

November, 1861, a paper on the Taconic and Lower Silurian Rocks of
Vermont and Canada. In the following year he was severely reviewed by
“T,” who states positively in controverting Marcou (33, 282, 283, 1862) that
“the granites (of the Green Mountains) are evidently strata altered in place.”

“Mr. Marcou should further be informed that the granites of the Alpine summits, instead of being,
as was once supposed, eruptive rocks, are now known to be altered strata of newer Secondary and
Tertiary age. A simple structure holds good in the British Islands, where as Sir Roderick Murchison
has shown in his recent Geological map of Scotland, Ben Nevis and Ben Lawers are found to be
composed of higher strata, lying in synclinals. This great law of mountain structure would alone lead
us to suppose that the gneiss of the Green mountains, instead of being at the base, is really at the
summit of the series....
We cannot here stop to discuss Mr. Marcou’s remark about ‘the unstratified and oldest crystalline
rocks of the White mountains’ which he places beneath the lower Taconic series. Mr. Lesley has
shown that these granites are stratified, and with Mr. Hunt, regards them as of Devonian Age. (This
Journal, vol. 31, p. 403.) Mr. Marcou has come among us with notions of mountains upheaved by
intrusive granites, and similar antiquated traditions, now, happily for science, well nigh forgotten.”

It is seen that Marcou, notwithstanding the general character of his work,
happened to be nearer right in some matters than were his critics, and that
“T” had adopted to the limit the views of Hunt.
The recovery of geology from this period of confusion was partly owing
to the slow accumulation of opposed facts; especially to a recognition of the
fact that the overplaced relation of the granite gneisses in western Scotland
was due to great overthrusts; also to the evidence of the clearly intrusive
nature of many of the Cordilleran granites. The recovery of a sounder
theory was hastened, however, by the application of criticisms by J. D.
Dana in the Journal. In 1866 (42, 252) Dana pointed out that sedimentary
rocks in Pennsylvania, in Nova Scotia, and other regions which had been
buried to a depth of at least 16,000 feet are not metamorphic. Mere depth of
burial of sediments was not sufficient therefore to produce metamorphism
and aqueo-igneous fusion. The baseless and speculative character of the use
of minerals as an index of age and of Hunt’s interpretation of New England
geology in general was shown by Dana in 1872 (3, 91). The following year
Dana pointed out clearly that igneous eruptions in general have been
derived from a deep-seated source and did not come from the aqueo-
igneous fusion of sediments. As to gradations between true igneous rocks
and fused and displaced sediments he makes the following statements (6,
114, 1873):

“Again, the plastic rock-material that may be derived from the fusion or semifusion of the
supercrust, (that is, of rocks originally of sedimentary origin,) gives rise to “igneous” rocks often not
distinguishable from other igneous rocks, when it is ejected through fissures far from its place of
origin; while crystalline rocks are simply metamorphic if they remain in their original relations to the
associated rocks, or nearly so.
Between these latter igneous rocks and the metamorphic there may be indefinite gradations, as
claimed by Hunt. But if our reasonings are right, the great part of igneous rocks can be proved to
have had no such supercrust origin. The argument from the presence of moisture or of hydrous
minerals in such rocks in favor of their origin from the fusion of sediments has been shown to be
invalid.”

The injected marginal rocks and the post-intrusive metamorphism of
most of the New England granites has, however, obscured more or less their
real igneous nature so that the gradation from metamorphic sediments
through igneous gneisses to granites could be read in either direction. These
features misled Dana who accepted the prevailing idea of the general
metamorphic origin of granite. Dana makes the following statement (6, 164,
1873):

“But Hunt is right in holding that in general granite and syenite (the quartz-bearing syenite) are
undoubtedly metamorphic rocks where not vein-formations, as I know from the study of many
examples of them in New England; and the veins are results of infiltration through heated moisture
from the rocks adjoining some part of the opened fissures they fill.”

Granite, although regarded at this time as the extreme of the
metamorphic series and originating from sediments, was looked upon as
typically Archean in age, though in some cases younger. Such a doctrine
permitted such extreme misinterpretations as that of Clarence King and S.
F. Emmons on the nature of the intrusive granite of the Little Cottonwood
canyon in the Wahsatch Range. This body cuts across 30,000 feet of
Paleozoic rocks and to the careful observer, as later admitted by Emmons,
shows clear evidence of its transgressive nature. But at that time it was
generally considered that granite mountains were capable of resisting the
erosion of all geological time. Consequently it did not seem incredible to
King and his associates that here a great granite range of Archean origin had
stood up through Paleozoic time until gradual subsidence had permitted it to
be buried beneath 30,000 feet of sediments.[82]
It may seem to the present day reader that such a misinterpretation, doing
violence to fundamental geologic knowledge as now recognized, was

inexcusable; but in the light of the history of geology as here detailed it is
seen to have been the interpretation natural to that time. It is true that a
careful examination of the facts of that very field would have proved the
post-Paleozoic and intrusive nature of that great granite body now known as
the Little Cottonwood batholith, but Emmons has explained the rapid and
partial nature of the observations which they were compelled to make in
order to keep up to their schedule of progress (16, 139, 1903).
Whitney had found some years earlier that the granites of the Sierra
Nevada were igneous rocks intrusive into the Triassic and Jurassic strata.
The Lake Superior geologists began to show in the eighties that granite was
there an intrusive igneous rock. R. D. Irving and Wadsworth noted these
relations. Lawson in 1887 pointed out emphatically (33, 473) that the
granites of the Rainy Lake region, although basal, were younger than the
schists which lay above them. The granite gneisses he held were of clearly
the same igneous origin as the granites and neither gave any field evidence
of being fused and displaced sediments. From this time forward the truly
igneous nature of granite became increasingly accepted until now the notion
of its being made of sedimentary rocks softened and recrystallized by the
rise of the isogeotherms through deep burial is as obsolete as the still older
doctrine of the Neptunists that granite was laid down as a crystalline
precipitate on the floor of the primitive ocean.
The recognition of the truly igneous nature of granites has been followed
in the present generation by a series of studies on their structural relations
and mode of genesis. A number of important initial articles on various
aspects of structure and contact relations have appeared in the Journal, but
this sketch of the history of the subject may well stop with the introduction
to this modern period.

Orogenic Structures.

Views of Plutonists and Neptunists.

Orogenic structures are, as the name implies, those connected with the
birth of mountains. Nearly synonymous terms are deformative or secondary
structures. On a small scale this division embraces the phenomena exposed
in the rock ledge or quarry face, or in the dips and dislocations varying from
one exposure to another. These structures include faults, folds, and foliation.
On a larger scale are included the relations of the different ranges of a
mountain system to each other, relations to previous geologic history,
relations to the earth as a whole, and to the forces which have generated the
structures.
In order to see the stage of development of this subject in 1818 and its
progress as reflected through the publications of a century, more
particularly in the Journal, it is desirable to turn again to those two treatises
emanating from Edinburgh at the beginning of the nineteenth century and
representing two opposite schools of thought, the Plutonists and Neptunists.
Playfair, in 1802, devotes nineteen pages to the subject of the inflection
and elevation of strata.[83] He places emphasis on the characteristic
parallelism of the strike of the folds throughout a region, as shown through
the intersection of the folds by a horizontal plane of erosion. He contrasts
this with the arches shown in a transverse section and enlarges on our
ability to study the deeply buried strata through the denudation of the folded
structure. He argues from these relations that the structures can not be
explained by the vague appeal of the Neptunists to forces of crystallization,
to slopes of original deposition, or to sinking in of the roofs of caverns. The
causes he argues were heat combined with pressure. As to the directions in
which the pressure acted he is not altogether clear, but apparently regards
the pressure as acting in upward thrusts against the sedimentary planes, the
latter yielding as warped surfaces. His method of presentation is that of
inductive reasoning from facts, but he stopped short of the conception of
horizontal compression through terrestrial contraction.
Jameson, professor of natural history in the same university, in 1808
contemptuously ignores the work of Hutton and Playfair in what he calls
the “monstrosities known under the name of Theories of the Earth.” In a

couple of pages he confuses and dismisses the whole subject of
deformation. He states:[84]

“It is therefore a fact, that all inclined strata, with a very few exceptions, have been formed so
originally, and do not owe their inclination to a subsequent change.
When we examine the structure of a mountain, we must be careful that our observations be not too
micrological, otherwise we shall undoubtedly fail in acquiring a distinct conception of it. This will
appear evident when we reflect that the geognostic features of Nature are almost all on the great
scale. In no case is this rule to be more strictly followed than in the examination of the stratified
structure.
By not attending to this mode of examination, geognosts have fallen into numberless errors, and
have frequently given to extensive tracts of country a most irregular and confused structure.
Speculators building on these errors have represented the whole crust of the globe as an irregular and
unseemly mass. It is indeed surprising, that men possessed of any knowledge of the beautiful
harmony that prevails in the structure of organic beings could for a moment believe it possible, that
the great fabric of the globe itself,—that magnificent display of Omnipotence,—should be destitute
of all regularity in its structure, and be nothing more than a heap of ruins.”

This was the attitude of a leader of British opinion toward the subject of
deformational geology from which the infant science had to recover before
progress could be made. The early maps were essentially mineralogical and
lithological. The order of superposition and the consequent sequence of age
was regarded as settled by Werner in Germany and not requiring
investigation in America. The early examples of structure were sections
drawn with exaggerated vertical scales and those of Maclure do not show
detail.

Recognition of Appalachian Structures.

Following the founding of the Journal in 1818 there is observable a
growth in the quality and detail of geological mapping. Dr. Aiken, professor
of natural philosophy and chemistry in Mt. St. Mary’s College, published in
the Journal in 1834 (26, 219) a vertical section extending between
Baltimore and Wheeling, a distance of nearly 250 miles, on a scale of about
7 miles per inch. The succession of rocks is carefully shown and the
direction of dip, but no attempt is made to show the underground relations,
the stratigraphic sequence, and the folded structures which are so clear in
that Appalachian section. The text also shows that the author had not
recognized the folded structure. Furthermore, where the folds cease at the
Alleghany mountain front, the flat strata are shown as resting
unconformably on the folded rocks to the east.
R. C. Taylor, geologist, civil and mining engineer, was from 1830 to 1835
the leading student of Pennsylvanian geology as shown by the publication
in 1835 of four papers aggregating over 80 pages in the Transactions of the
Geological Society of Pennsylvania. His work is noticeable for accuracy in
detail and no doubt was influential in setting a high standard for the state
geological survey which immediately followed.
H. D. and W. B. Rogers have been given credit in this country, and in
Europe also, as being the leading expounders of Appalachian structure.
Merrill speaks of H. D. Rogers as unquestionably the leading structural
geologist of his time.[85] To the writer, this attributed position appears to be
due to his opportunities rather than to scientific acumen. The magnificent
but readily decipherable folded structure of Pennsylvania, the relationships
of coal and iron to this structure, the considerable sums of money
appropriated, and the work of a corps of able assistants were factors which
made it comparatively easy to reach important results. In ability to weigh
facts and interpret them Edward Hitchcock showed much more insight than
H. D. Rogers, while in the philosophic and comprehensive aspects of the
subject J. D. Dana far outranks him.
H. D. Rogers in his first report on the geological survey of New Jersey,
1836, recognizes that the Cambro-Silurian limestones (lower Secondary

limestones) were deposited as nearly horizontal beds and the ridges of pre-
Cambrian gneiss (Primary) had been pushed up as anticlinal axes (p. 128).
He also clearly recognized the distinction between slaty cleavage and true
dip as shown in the Ordovician slates (p. 97). Between 1836 and 1840 he
had learned a great deal on the nature of folds as is shown in his
Pennsylvania report for 1839 and the structure sections in his New Jersey
report for 1840.
R. C. Taylor, who had now become president of the board of directors of
the Dauphin and Susquehanna Coal Company, published in the Journal in
1841 (41, 80) an important paper entitled “Notice of a Model of the Western
portion of the Schuylkill or Southern Coal Field of Pennsylvania, in
illustration of an Address to the Association of American Geologists, on the
most appropriate modes for representing Geological Phenomena.” In this
paper he calls attention to the value of modeling as a means of showing true
relations in three dimensions. He condemns the custom prevalent among
geologists of showing structure sections with an exaggerated vertical scale
with its resultant topographic and structural distortions. Taylor was widely
acquainted with the structure of Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia.

Nature of Forces Producing Folding.

In 1825 Dr. J. H. Steele sent to Professor Silliman two detailed drawings
and description of an overturned fold at Saratoga Lake, New York. As to the
significance of this feature Steele makes the following statement (9, 3,
1825):

“It is impossible to examine this locality without being strongly impressed with the belief that the
position which the strata here assume could not have been effected in any other way than by a power
operating from beneath upwards and at the same time possessing a progressive force; something
analogous to what takes place in the breaking up of the ice of large rivers. The continued swelling of
the stream first overcomes the resistance of its frozen surface and having elevated it to a certain
extent, it is forced into a vertical position, or thrown over upon the unbroken stratum behind, by the
progressive power of the current.”

So far as the present writer is aware this is the first recognition in
geological literature of the evidence of a horizontally compressive and
overturning force as a cause of folding.
To E. Hitchcock belongs the credit of being the first to describe
overturning and inversion of strata on a large scale, but without clearly
recognizing it as such. In western Massachusetts metamorphism is extreme
in the lower Paleozoic rocks in the vicinity of the overthrust mass of
Archean granite-gneiss which constitutes the Hoosic range. The Paleozoic
rocks of the valley to the west are overturned and appear to dip beneath the
older rocks. Farther west the metamorphism fades out and the series
assumes a normal position. Such an inverted relation, up to that time
unknown, is described in 1833 as follows by Hitchcock in his Geology of
Massachusetts (pp. 297, 298):

“But a singular anomaly in the superposition of the series of rocks above described, presents a
great difficulty in this case. The strata of these rocks almost uniformly dip to the east: that is, the
newer rocks seem to crop out beneath the older ones; so that the saccharine limestone, associated
with gneiss in the eastern part of the range, seems to occupy the uppermost place in the series. Now
as superposition is of more value in determining the relative ages of rocks than their mineral
characters, must we not conclude that the rocks, as we go westerly from Hoosac mountain, do in fact
belong to older groups? The petrifactions which some of them contain, and their decidedly
fragmentary character, will not allow such a supposition to be indulged for a moment. It is impossible
for a geologist to mistake the evidence, which he sees at almost every step, that he is passing from

older to newer formations, just as soon as he begins to cross the valley of Berkshire towards the west.
We are driven then to the alternative of supposing, either that there must be a deception in the
apparent outcrop of the newer rocks from beneath the older, or that the whole series of strata has been
actually thrown over, so as to bring the newest rocks at the bottom. The latter supposition is so
improbable that I cannot at present admit it.”

Hitchcock tried to reconcile the evidence by a series of unconformities
and inclined deposition, but finds the solution unsatisfactory.
In this same year, 1833, Elie de Beaumont, a distinguished French
geologist, published his theory of the origin of mountains. He advanced the
idea that since the globe was cooling it was condensing, and the crust,
already cool, must suffer compression in adjusting itself to the shrinking
molten interior. He concluded from the evidence shown in Europe that the
collapse of the crust occurred violently and rapidly at widely spaced
intervals of time. This hypothesis introduced the idea of mountain folding
by horizontal compressive forces. The theoretical paper of de Beaumont,
together with further observations by Hitchcock and others, led the latter in
1841 to a final belief in the inversion of strata on a large scale by horizontal
compression. His conclusions are expressed in an important paper
published in the Journal (41, 268, 1841) and given on April 8, 1841, as the
First Anniversary Presidential Address before the Association of American
Geologists. This comprehensive summary of American geology occupies 43
pages. Three pages are given to the inverted structure of the Appalachians
from which the following paragraphs may be quoted:

“We have all read of the enormous dislocations and inversions of the strata of the Alps; and similar
phenomena are said to exist in the Andes. Will it be believed, that we have an example in the United
States on a still more magnificent scale than any yet described?...
Let us suppose the strata between Hudson and Connecticut rivers, while yet in the plastic state,
(and the supposition may be extended to any other section across this belt of country from Canada to
Alabama,) and while only slightly elevated, were acted upon by a force at the two rivers, exerted in
opposite directions. If powerful enough, it might cause them to fold up into several ridges; and if
more powerful along the western than the eastern side, they might fall over so as to take an inverted
dip, without producing any remarkable dislocations, while subsequent denudation would give to the
surface its present outline....
Fourthly, we should readily admit that such a plication and inversion of the strata might take place
on a small scale. If for instance, we were to press against the extremities of a series of plastic layers
two feet long, they could easily be made to assume the position into which the rocks under
consideration are thrown. Why then should we not be equally ready to admit that this might as easily
be done, over a breadth of fifty miles, and a length of twelve hundred, provided we can find in

nature, forces sufficiently powerful? Finally, such forces do exist in nature, and have often been in
operation.”

The advanced nature of these conceptions may be appreciated by
contrasting them with those put forth by H. D. and W. B. Rogers on April
29, 1842, before the third annual meeting of the same body (43, 177, 1842)
and repeated by them before the British Association at Manchester two
months later. In their own words, the Rogers brothers from their studies on
the folds shown in Pennsylvania and Virginia, conceived mountain folds in
general to be produced by much elastic vapor escaping through many
parallel fissures formed in succession, producing violent propulsive wave
oscillations on the surface of the fluid earth beneath a thin crust. Thus actual
billows are assumed to have rolled along through the crust. They did not
think tangential pressure alone could produce folds. Such pressures were
regarded as secondary, produced by the propagation of the waves and the
only expression of tangential forces which they admitted was to fix the
folds and hold them in position after the violent oscillation had subsided
(44, 360, 1843). The leading British geologists De la Beche and Sedgwick
criticized adversely this remarkable theory, stating that they could see no
such analogy in mountain folds to violent earthquake waves and that in
their opinion the slow application of tangential force was sufficient to
account for the phenomena (44, 362–365, 1843).
H. D. Rogers in the prosecution of the geological survey of Pennsylvania
displayed notable organizing ability and persistence in accomplishment,
even to advancing personally considerable sums of money, trusting to the
state legislature to later reimburse him. Finally, after many delays by the
state, the publication was placed directly in his charge and he produced in
1858 a magnificent quarto work of over 1,600 pages, handsomely
illustrated, and accompanied by an atlas. It is excellent from the descriptive
standpoint, standing in the first class. Measured as a contribution to the
theory of dynamical geology, the explanatory portions were, however, thirty
years behind the times. The same hypotheses are put forth in 1858 as in
1842. There is no acceptance of the views of Lyell concerning the
uniformitarian principles expounded by this British leader in 1830, or of the
nature of orogenic forces as published by Elie de Beaumont in 1833. Rogers
rejects the view that cleavage is due to compression and suggests “that both
cleavage and foliation are due to the parallel transmission of planes or

waves of heat, awakening the molecular forces, and determining their
direction.”[86] Thus a mere maze of words takes the place of inductive
demonstrations already published.
In following the play of these opposing currents of geologic thought we
reach now the point where a period of brilliant progress in the knowledge of
mountains and of continental structures begins in the work of J. D. Dana. In
1842 Dana returned from the Wilkes Exploring Expedition and the
following year began the publication of the series of papers which for the
next half century marked him as the leader in geologic theory in America.
His work is of course to be judged against the background of his times. His
papers mark distinct advances in many lines and are characterized
throughout by breadth of conception and especially by clear and logical
thinking. His work was published very largely in the Journal, of which after
a few years he became chief editor. His first contribution on the subject of
mountain structures, entitled “Geological results of the earth’s contraction
in consequence of cooling,” was published in 1847 (3, 176). The evidence
of horizontal pressure was first perceived in France as shown by the
features of the Alps. Elie de Beaumont connected it, by means of the theory
of a cooling and contracting globe, with the other large fact of the increase
of temperature with descent in the crust. Dana credits the Rogers brothers
with first making known the folded structures of the Appalachians, but
objects to their interpretation of origin. He showed by means of diagrams
that the folds are to be explained by lateral pressure, the direction of
overturning indicating the direction from which the driving force
proceeded.
The Rogers brothers and especially James Hall, in working out the
Appalachian stratigraphy, had noted that the formations, although
accumulating to a maximum thickness of between 30,000 and 40,000 feet,
showed evidences that the successive formations were deposited in shallow
water. It suggested to them that the weight of the accumulating sediments
was the cause of subsidence, each foot of sediment causing a foot of down
sinking. This idea has continued to run through various text books in
geology for half a century, yet Dana early saw the fallacy and in 1863 in the
first edition of his Manual of Geology (p. 717) states “whether this is an
actual cause or not in geological dynamics is questionable.” In 1866 in an
important article on “Observations on the origins of some of the earth’s
features,” Dana deals more fully and finally with this subject (42, 205, 252,

1866). He shows that such an effect of accumulating sediment postulates a
delicate balance, a very thin crust and no resistance below. If such a
weakness were granted it would be impossible for the earth to hold up
mountains. Furthermore such subsidence was not regular during its progress
and finally in the long course of geologic time gave place to a reverse
movement of elevation.
Hall had pointed out the fact that the sediments were thickest on the east
in the region of mountain folding and thinned out to a fraction of this
thickness in the broad Mississippi basin. Hall argued that the mere
subsidence of the trough would produce the observed folding and that the
folding was unrelated to mountain making or crustal shortening. In
supposed proof he cited the fact that the Catskills consist of unfolded rock,
are higher than the folded region to the south, and nearly as high as the
highest metamorphic mountains to the east.[87] Hall and all his
contemporaries were handicapped in their geological theories by a complete
inappreciation of the importance of subaërial denudation. For subscribing to
these errors of their time even the ablest men should not be held
responsible. Hall was the most forcible personality in geology in his
generation. His contributions to paleontology were superb. His perception
of the relation existing between troughs of thick sediments and folded
structures was a contribution of the first importance; yet in the structural
field his argument as to the production of the Appalachian folds by mere
subsidence during deposition indicates a remarkable inability to apply the
logical consequences of his hypothesis to the nature of the folds as already
made known by the Rogers. Dana pointed out in reply to Hall that the
folding did not correspond to the requirements of Hall’s hypothesis,
especially as the folding took place not during, but after the close of the vast
Paleozoic deposition. Dana states in conclusion on Hall’s hypothesis (42,
209, 1866) that “It is a theory of the origin of mountains with the origin of
mountains left out.”

The Theory of Geosynclines and Geanticlines.

The fact that systems of folded strata lie along axes of especially thick
sediments and that this implied subsidence during deposition was Hall’s
contribution to geologic theory, but curiously enough he failed, as shown, to
connect it with the subsequent nature of mountain folding. He did not see
why such troughs should be weak to resist horizontal compression. The
clear recognition of this relationship was the contribution of Le Conte, who
in a paper on “A theory of the formation of the great features of the earth’s
surface” (4, 345, 460, 1872), reached the conclusion that “mountain chains
are formed by the mashing together and the up-swelling of sea bottoms
where immense thicknesses of sediment have accumulated.”
As to the cause why mashing should take place along troughs of thick
sediments Le Conte adopts the hypothesis of aqueo-igneous fusion
proposed independently long before by Babbage and Herschel and
elaborated into a theory of igneous rocks by Hunt. Under this view, as the
older sediments became deeply buried, the heat of the earth’s interior
ascended into them, and since they included the water of sedimentation a
softening and metamorphism resulted. Dana had shown, however, six years
previously (42, 252, 1866), as the following quotation will indicate, that
metamorphism of sediments required more than deep burial and that no
such weakening as was postulated by Herschel had occurred:

“The correctness of Herschel’s principle cannot be doubted. But the question of its actual agency
in ordinary metamorphism must be decided by an appeal to facts; and on this point I would here
present a few facts for consideration.
The numbers and boldness of the flexures in the rocks of most metamorphic regions have always
seemed to me to bear against the view that the heat causing the change had ascended by the very
quiet method recognized in this theory....
But there are other facts indicating a limited sufficiency to this means of metamorphism. These are
afforded by the great faults and sections of strata open to examination. In the Appalachian region,
both of Virginia and Pennsylvania, faults occur, as described by the Professors Rogers, and by Mr. J.
P. Lesley, which afford us important data for conclusions. Mr. Lesley, an excellent geologist and
geological observer, who has explored personally the regions referred to, states that at the great fault
of Juniata and Blair Cos., Pennsylvania, the rocks of the Trenton period are brought up to a level with
those of the Chemung, making a dislocation of at least 16,000, and probably of 20,000, feet. And yet
the Trenton limestone and Hudson River shales are not metamorphic. Some local cases of alteration

occur there, including patches of roofing slate; but the greater part of the shales are no harder than the
ordinary shales of the Pennsylvania Coal formation.
At a depth of 16,000 feet the temperature of the earth’s crust, allowing an increase of 1° F. for 60
feet of descent, would be about 330° F.; or with 1° F. for 50 feet, about 380° F.—either of which
temperatures is far above the boiling point of water; and with the thinner crust of Paleozoic time the
temperature at this depth should have been still higher. But, notwithstanding this heat, and also the
compression from so great an overlying mass, the limestones and shales are not crystalline. The
change of parts of the shale to roofing slate is no evidence in favor of the efficiency of the alleged
cause; for such a cause should act uniformly over great areas.”

The next contribution to the theory of orogeny was a series of papers
published in 1873 by Dana, entitled “On some results of the earth’s
contraction from cooling, including a discussion on the origin of mountains
and the nature of the earth’s interior.”[88] This contribution, viewed as a
whole, ranks among the first half dozen papers on the science of mountains.
The following quoted paragraphs give a view of the scope of this article:

“Kinds and Structure of Mountains.”
“While mountains and mountain chains all over the world, and low lands, also, have undergone
uplifts, in the course of their long history, that are not explained on the idea that all mountain
elevating is simply what may come from plication or crushing, the component parts of mountain
chains, or those simple mountains or mountain ranges that are the product of one process of making
—may have received, at the time of their original making, no elevation beyond that resulting from
plication.
This leads us to a grand distinction in orography, hitherto neglected, which is fundamental and of
the highest interest in dynamical geology; a distinction between—
1. A simple or individual mountain mass or range, which is the result of one process of making,
like an individual in any process of evolution, and which may be distinguished as a monogenetic
range, being one in genesis; and
2. A composite or polygenetic range or chain, made up of two or more monogenetic ranges
combined.
The Appalachian chain—the mountain region along the Atlantic border of North America—is a
polygenetic chain; it consists, like the Rocky and other mountain chains, of several monogenetic
ranges, the more important of which are: 1. The Highland range (including the Blue Ridge or parts of
it, and the Adirondacks also, if these belong to the same process of making) pre-Silurian in
formation; 2. The Green Mountain range, in western New England and eastern New York, completed
essentially after the Lower Silurian era or during its closing period; 3. The Alleghany range,
extending from southern New York southwestward to Alabama, and completed immediately after the
Carboniferous age.
The making of the Alleghany range was carried forward at first through a long-continued
subsidence—a geosynclinal (not a true synclinal, since the rocks of the bending crust may have had
in them many true or simple synclinals as well as anticlinals), and a consequent accumulation of
sediments, which occupied the whole of Paleozoic time; and it was completed, finally, in great
breakings, faultings and foldings or plications of the strata, along with other results of disturbance.
These examples exhibit the characteristics of a large class of mountain masses or ranges. A
geosynclinal accompanied by sedimentary depositions, and ending in a catastrophe of plications and
solidification, are the essential steps, while metamorphism and igneous ejections are incidental
results. The process is one that produces final stability in the mass and its annexation generally to the
more stable part of the continent, though not stable against future oscillations of level of wider range,
nor against denudation.
It is apparent that in such a process of formation elevation by direct uplift of the underlying crust
has no necessary place. The attending plications may make elevations on a vast scale and so also may
the shoves upward along the lines of fracture, and crushing may sometimes add to the effect; but
elevation from an upward movement of the downward bent crust is only an incidental concomitant, if
it occur at all.
We perceive thus where the truth lies in Professor Le Conte’s important principle. It should have in
view alone monogenetic mountains and these only at the time of their making. It will then read,
plication and shovings along fractures being made more prominent than crushing:
Plication, shoving along fractures and crushing are the true sources of the elevation that takes place
during the making of geosynclinal monogenetic mountains.

And the statement of Professor Hall may be made right if we recognize the same distinction, and,
also, reverse the order and causal relation of the two events, accumulation and subsidence; and so
make it read:
Regions of monogenetic mountains were, previous, and preparatory, to the making of the
mountains, areas each of a slowly progressing geosynclinal, and, consequently, of thick
accumulations of sediments.
The prominence and importance in orography of the mountain individualities described above as
originating through a geosynclinal make it desirable that they should have a distinctive name; and I
therefore propose to call a mountain range of this kind a synclinorium, from synclinal and the Greek
ὄρος, mountain.
This brings us to another important distinction in orographic geology—that of a second kind of
monogenetic mountain. The synclinoria were made through a progressing geosynclinal. Those of the
second kind, here referred to, were produced by a progressing geanticlinal. They are simply the
upward bendings in the oscillations of the earth’s crust—the geanticlinal waves, and hardly require a
special name. Yet, if one is desired, the term anticlinorium, the correlate of synclinorium, would be
appropriate. Many of them have disappeared in the course of the oscillations; and yet, some may
have been for a time—perhaps millions of years—respectable mountains.
The geosynclinal ranges or synclinoria have experienced in almost all cases, since their
completion, true elevation through great geanticlinal movements, but movements that embraced a
wider range of crust than that concerned in the preceding geosynclinal movements, indeed a range of
crust that comes strictly under the designation of a polygenetic mass.”

“The Condition of the Earth’s Interior.”
“The condition of the earth’s interior is not among the geological results of contraction from
cooling. But these results offer an argument of great weight respecting the earth’s interior condition,
and make it desirable that the subject should be discussed in this connection. Moreover, the facts
throw additional light on the preceding topic—the origin of mountains.
It seems now to be demonstrated by astronomical and physical arguments—arguments that are
independent, it should be noted, of direct geological observation—that the interior of our globe is
essentially solid. But the great oscillations of the earth’s surface, which have seemed to demand for
explanation a liquid interior, still remain facts, and present apparently a greater difficulty than ever to
the geologist. Professor Le Conte’s views, in volume iv, were offered by him as a method of meeting
this difficulty; yet, as he admits in his concluding remarks, the oscillations over the interior of a
continent, and the fact of the greater movements on the borders of the larger ocean, were left by him
unexplained. Yet these oscillations are not more real than the changes of level or greater oscillations
which occurred along the sea border, where mountains were the final result; and this being a
demonstrated truth, no less than the general solidity of the earth’s interior, the question comes up,
how are the two truths compatible?
The geological argument on the subject (the only one within our present purpose) has often been
presented. But it derives new force and gives clearer revelations when the facts are viewed in the
light of the principles that have been explained in the preceding part of this memoir.
The Appalachian subsidence in the Alleghany region of 35,000 to 40,000 feet, going on through all
the Paleozoic era, was due, as has been shown, to an actual sinking of the earth’s crust through lateral
pressure, and not to local contraction in the strata themselves or the terranes underneath. But such a
subsidence is not possible, unless seven miles—that is, seven miles in maximum depth and over a
hundred in total breadth—unless seven miles of something were removed, in its progress, from the
region beneath.
If the matter beneath was not aërial, then liquid or viscous rock was pushed aside. This being a
fact, it would follow that there existed, underneath a crust of unascertained thickness, a sea or lake of
mobile (viscous or plastic) rock, as large as the sinking region; and also that this great viscous sea
continued in existence through the whole period of subsidence, or, in the case of the Alleghany
region, through all Paleozoic time—an era estimated on a previous page to cover at least thirty-five
millions of years, if time since the Silurian age began embraced fifty millions of years.
The facts thus sustain the statement that lateral pressure produced not only the subsidence of the
Appalachian region through the Paleozoic, but also, cotemporaneously, and as its essential
prerequisite, the rising of a sea-border elevation, or geanticlinal, parallel with it; and that both
movements demanded the existence beneath of a great sea of mobile rock.”

The recognition of regional warping as a major factor in the larger
structure of mountain systems, and the expression of that factor in the terms
geosyncline and geanticline forms a notable advance in geologic thought.
Subsequent folding on a regional scale results in the development of
synclinoria and anticlinoria. Van Hise has given these latter terms wide

currency, but apparently inadvertently has used synclinorium in a different
sense than that in which Dana defined it. Dana gave the word to a mountain
range made by the mashing and uplift of a geosyncline, Van Hise defines it
as a downfold of a large order of magnitude, embracing anticlines and
synclines within it; anticlinorium he uses for a corresponding up fold.[89]
Rice has called attention to this change of definition,[90] but Van Hise’s
usage is likely to prevail, since they are needed terms for the larger
mountain structure and do not require a determination of the previous limits
of upwarp and downwarp,—of original denudation and deposition.
Furthermore, a geosyncline in mountain folding may have one side uplifted,
the other side depressed and there are reasons for regarding the folds of
Pennsylvania, Dana’s type synclinorium, as representing but the western
and downfolded side of the Paleozoic geosyncline. Under that view the
folded Appalachians of Pennsylvania constitute a synclinorium in both the
sense of Dana and Van Hise.

The Ultimate Cause of Crustal Compression.

The next important advance in the theory of mountains was made by C.
E. Dutton who in 1874 published in the Journal (8, 113–123) an article
entitled “A criticism upon the contractional hypothesis.” Dutton gives
reasons for holding that the amount of folding and shortening exhibited in
mountain ranges, especially those of Tertiary date, is very much greater in
magnitude and is different in nature and distribution from that which would
be given by the surficial cooling of the globe. The following quotations
cover the principal points in the argument:

“The argument for the contractional hypothesis presupposes that the earth-mass may be considered
as consisting of two portions, a cooled exterior of undetermined (though probably comparatively
small) depth, inclosing a hot nucleus.... The secular loss of heat, it is assumed, would be greater from
the hot nucleus than from the exterior, and the greater consequent contraction of the nucleus would
therefore gradually withdraw the support of the exterior, which would collapse. The resulting strains
upon the exterior would be mainly tangential. Owing to considerable inequalities in the ability of
different portions to resist the strains thus developed, the yielding would take place at the lines, or
regions of least resistance, and the effects of the yielding would be manifested chiefly, or wholly, at
those places, in the form of mountain chains, or belts of table lands, and in the disturbances of
stratification. The primary division of the surface into areas of land and water are attributed to the
assumed smaller conductivity of materials underlying the land, which have been left behind in the
general convergence of the surface toward the center. Regarding these as the main and underlying
premises of the contractional argument, it is considered unnecessary to state the various subsidiary
propositions which have been advanced to explain the determination of this action to particular
phenomena, since the main proposition upon which they are based is considered untenable.
There can be no reasonable doubt that the earth-mass consists of a cooled exterior inclosing a hot
nucleus, and a necessary corollary to this must be secular cooling, probably accompanied by
contraction of the cooling portions. But when we apply the known laws of thermal physics to
ascertain the rate of this cooling, and its distribution through the mass, the objectionable character of
the contractional hypothesis becomes obvious.
That Fourier’s theorem, under the general conditions given, expresses the normal law of cooling, is
admitted by all mathematicians who have examined it. The only ground of controversy must be upon
the values to be assigned to the constants. But there seem to be no values consistent with probability
which can be of help to the contractional hypothesis. The application of the theorem shows that
below 200 or 300 miles the cooling has, up to the present time, been extremely little.... At present,
however, the unavoidable deduction from this theorem is that the greatest possible contraction due to
secular cooling is insufficient in amount to account for the phenomena attributed to it by the
contractional hypothesis.
The determination of plications to particular localities presents difficulties in the way of the
contractional hypothesis which have been underrated. It has been assumed that if a contraction of the
interior were to occur, the yielding of the outer crust would take place at localities of least resistance.
But this could be true only on the assumption that the crust could have a horizontal movement in

which the nucleus does not necessarily share. A vertical section through the Appalachian region and
westward to the 100th meridian shows a surface highly disturbed for about two hundred and fifty
miles, and comparatively undisturbed for more than a thousand. No one would seriously argue that
the contraction of the nucleus had been confined to portions underlying the disturbed regions: yet if
the contraction was general, there must have been a large amount of slip of some portion of the
undisturbed segment over the nucleus. Such a proposition would be very difficult to defend, even if
the premises were granted. It seems as if the friction and adhesion of the crust upon the nucleus had
been overlooked. Nor could this be small, even though the crust rested upon liquid lava. The attempts
which some eminent geologists have recently made to explain surface corrugation by this method
clearly show a neglect on their part to analyze carefully the system of forces which a contraction of
the nucleus would generate in the crust. Their discussions have been argumentative and not
analytical. The latter method of examination would have shown them certain difficulties
irreconcilable with their knowledge of facts. Adopting the argumentative mode, and in conformity
with their view regarding the exterior as a shell of insufficient coherence to sustain itself when its
support is sensibly diminished, the tendency of corrugation to occur mainly along certain belts, with
series of parallel folds, is not explained by assuming that these localities are regions of weakness. For
a shrinkage of the nucleus would throw each elementary portion of the crust into a state of strain by
the action of forces in all directions within its own tangent plane. A relief by a horizontal yielding in
one direction would by no means be a general relief.”

Dutton’s criticisms robbed the current hypothesis of mountain-making of
its conventional basis without providing a new foundation. It was a quarter
of a century in advance of its time, has been seldom cited, and seems to
have had but little direct influence in shaping subsequent thought. It,
however, gave direction to Dutton’s views, and his later papers were far-
reaching in their influence.
If contraction from external cooling is not the cause of the compressive
forces it is necessary to seek another cause. Two years later, in 1876, Dutton
attempted to provide an answer to this open question.[91] A review of this
paper, evidently by J. D. Dana, is given in the Journal. The following
explanations of Dutton’s theory and of Dana’s comments upon it are
contained in a few paragraphs from this review (12, 142, 1876).

“Captain Dutton presents in this paper the views brought out in his article in volume viii of this
Journal, with fuller illustrations, and adds explanations of his theory of the origin of mountains. The
discussion should be read by all desiring to reach right conclusions, it presenting many arguments
from physical considerations against the contraction-theory, or that of the uplifting and folding of
strata through lateral pressure. There is much to be learned before any theory of mountain-making
shall have a sufficient foundation in observed facts to demand full confidence, and Captain Dutton
merits the thanks of geologists for the aid he has given them toward reaching right conclusions. His
discussions are not free from misunderstandings of geological facts, and if they fail to be finally
received it will be for this reason.

We here give in a brief form, and nearly in his own words, the principal points in his theory of
mountain-making as explained in the later part of his memoir.
Accepting the proposition that there is a plastic condition of rock beneath the earth’s crust and that
metamorphism is a ‘hydrothermal process,’ and believing that ‘the penetration of water to profound
depths [in the earth’s crust] is a well sustained theory,’ he says that great pressure and a temperature
approaching redness are essential conditions of metamorphism.... ‘The heaviest portion would sink
into the lighter colloid mass underneath, protruding it laterally beneath the lighter portions where, by
its lighter density, it tends to accumulate.’ He adds: ‘The resulting movements would be determined,
first, by the amount of difference in the densities of the upper and lower masses, and, second, by
inequalities in the thickness of the strata: the forces now become adequate to the building of
mountains and the plication of strata, and their modes of operation agree with the classes of facts
already set forth as the concomitants of those features.’
The views are next applied to a system of plications. ‘It has been indicated that plications occur
where strata have rapidly accumulated in great volume and in elongated narrow belts; that the axes of
plications are parallel to the axes of maximum deposit; and that the movements immediately
followed the deposition’—the case of the Appalachians being an example in which the accumulations
averaged 40,000 feet. He observes: ‘Wherever the load of sediments becomes heaviest, there they
sink deepest, protruding the colloid magma beneath them to the adjoining areas, which are less
heavily weighted, forming at once both synclinals and anticlinals.’
With regard to this new theory, we might reasonably question the existence of the colloid magma
—a condition fundamental to the theory—and his evidence that water penetrates to profound depths
in the earth’s crust sufficient to make hydrous rocks. We might ask for evidence that the rocks
beneath the Cretaceous and Tertiary, and other underlying strata of the Uintahs, were in such a
colloid state, and this so near the surface, that the ‘beds subsided by their gross weight as rapidly as
they grew.’
Again, he says that the movements of mountain-making ‘immediately followed the deposition.’
‘Immediately’ sounds quick to one who appreciates the slowness of geological changes. The
Carboniferous age was very long; and somewhere in that part of geological time, either before the
age had fully ended, or some time after its close, the epoch of catastrophe began.”

We see foreshadowed in this paper the theory of isostasy, or condition of
vertical equilibrium in the crust which Dutton published in 1889. This
theory has borne remarkable fruit, but Dutton attempted to link to it the
horizontally compressive forces which have produced folding and
overthrusting. Willis in 1907[92] and Hayford in 1911, overlooking Dana’s
objections, have attempted to make a lateral isostatic undertow the cause of
all horizontal movements in the crust, adopting the mechanism of Dutton.
The present writer, although accepting the principle of isostasy as an
explanation of broad vertical movements, has published papers which go to
show the inadequacy of this hypothesis of lateral pressure; inadequate in
time relation, in amount, and in expression.[93]
In 1903 it was determined by several physicists that the materials of the
earth’s crust were radioactive and must generate throughout geologic time a

quantity of heat which perhaps equalled that lost by radiation into space. By
1907 this had become demonstrated. The remarkable conclusion had been
reached that the earth, although losing heat, is not a cooling globe. Dutton’s
contentions against mountain growth through external cooling and
contraction were thus unexpectedly, through a wholly new branch of
knowledge, demonstrated to be true.
Nevertheless, all students of orogeny are agreed that profound
compressive forces have been the chief agents in developing mountain
structures. Chamberlin was the first to arrive at the idea that the shrinkage
may originate in the deeper portions of the earth under the urgency of the
enormous pressures, apparently by giving rise to slow recombinations of
matter into denser forms.[94]

The New Era in the Interpretation of Mountain Structures.

In the meantime, between 1874 and 1904, another advance in the
knowledge of mountain structures was taking place in Europe. Suess
studied the distribution of mountain arcs over the earth and dwelt upon the
prevalence of overthrust structures; the backland being thrust toward and
over the foreland, the rise of the mountain arc or geanticline depressing the
foredeep or geosyncline. Bertrand and Lugeon from 1884 to 1900 were
reinterpreting the Alpine structures on this basis. They showed that the
whole mountain system had been overturned and overthrust from the south
to an almost incredible degree. Enormous denudation had later dissevered
the northern outlying portions and given rise to “mountains without
roots,”—isolated outliers, consisting of overturned masses of strata which
had accumulated as sediments far to the southward in another portion of the
ancient geosyncline.
On a smaller scale similar phenomena are exhibited in the Appalachians.
Willis showed that the deep subsidence of the center of the geosyncline
gave an initial dip which determined the position of yielding under
compression. Laboratory experiments brought out the weakness of the
stratigraphic structure to resist horizontal compression. The nature of the
stratigraphic series was shown to determine whether the yielding would be
by mashing, competent folding, or breakage and overthrust. The problem of
mountain structures was thus brought into the realm of mechanics. These
results were published in three sources in 1893,—the Transactions of the
American Institute of Mining Engineers, the thirteenth annual report of the
United States Geological Survey, and the Journal (46, 257, 1893).
Finally should be noted the contributions of the Lake Superior school of
geology, in which the work of Van Hise stands preeminent. Under the
economic stimulus given by the discovery and development of enormously
rich bodies of iron ore, hidden under Pleistocene drift and involved in the
complex structures of vanished mountain systems of ancient date, structural
geology and metamorphism have become exact sciences to be drawn upon
in the search for mineral wealth and yielding also rich returns in a fuller
knowledge of early periods of earth history.

Crust Movements as Revealed by Physiography.

During the last quarter of the nineteenth century another division of
geology, dominantly American, was taking form and growth,—the science
of land forms,—physiography. The history of that development is treated by
Gregory in the preceding chapter but some of its bearings upon theory, in so
far as they affect the subject of mountain origin, are necessarily given here.
Powell, Dutton, and Gilbert in their explorations of the West saw the
stupendous work of denudation which had been carried to completion again
and again during the progress of geologic time. The mountain relief
consequently may be much younger than the folding of the rocks, and may
be largely or even wholly due to recurrent plateau movement, a doctrine to
which Dana had previously arrived. But the introduction of the idea of the
peneplain opened up a new field for exploration in the nature and date of
crust movements. Davis by this means began to study the later chapters of
Appalachian history, the most important early paper being published in
1891.[95] Since then Davis, Willis, and many others have found that, girdling
the world, a large part of the mountainous relief is due to vertical elevatory
forces acting over regions of previous folding and overthrust. In addition,
great plateau areas of unfolded rocks have been bodily lifted one to two
miles, or more, above their earlier levels. They may be broad geanticlinal
arches or bounded by the walls of profound fractures.
The linear mountain systems made from deep troughs of sediments have
come then to be recognized as but one of several classes of mountains. This
class, from its clear development in the Appalachians, and the fact that
many of the laws of mountain structure pertaining to it were first worked
out there, has been called by Powell the Appalachian type (12, 414, 1876).
A classification of mountain systems was proposed by him in which
mountains are classified into two major divisions, those composed of
sedimentary strata altered or unaltered, and those composed in whole or in
part of extravasated material. The first class he subdivides into six sub-
classes of which the folded Appalachians illustrate one. It appears to the
writer that Powell’s classification gives disproportionate importance to
certain types which he described; but nevertheless, the fact that such a

classification was made, indicates the growth of a more comprehensive
knowledge of mountains,—their origin, structure, and history.

Relations of Crust Movements to Density and Equilibrium.

A recent important development in the fields of geophysics and major
crust movements consists in the incorporation into geology of the doctrine
of isostasy. The evidence was developed in the middle of the nineteenth
century by the geodetic survey of India which indicated that the Himalayas
did not exert the gravitative influence that their volume called for. It was
clear that the crust beneath that mountain system was less dense than
beneath the plains of India and still less dense than the crust beneath the
Indian Ocean. This relation between density and elevation indicated some
approach to flotational equilibrium in the crust, comparable in its nature
though not in delicacy of adjustment to the elevation of the surface of an
iceberg above the ocean level owing to its depth and its density, less than
that of the surrounding medium. This important geological conception was
kept within the confines of astronomy and geodesy, however, until Dutton
in 1876, but especially in 1889, brought it into the geologic field. A test of
isostasy was made for the United States by Putnam and Gilbert in 1895 and
much more elaborate investigations have since been made by Hayford and
Bowie. These investigations demonstrate the importance and reality of
broad warping forces acting vertically and related to the regional variations
of density in the crust.
There are consequently two major and unrelated classes of forces
involved in the making of mountain structures,—the irresistible horizontal
compressive forces, arising apparently from condensation deep within the
earth, and vertical forces originating in the outer envelopes and tending
toward a hydrostatic equilibrium. In this latter field of investigation,
America, since the initial paper by Dutton, has taken the lead.

Conclusion on Contributions of America to Theories of Orogeny.

The sciences arose in Europe, but those which treated of the earth were
still in their infancy when transplanted to America. The first comprehensive
ideas on the nature of mountain structures arose in Great Britain and
France. These ideas served as a guide and stimulus to observation in the
recognition of deformations in the strata of the Appalachian system. Since
1840, however, America has ceased to be a pupil in this field of research but
has joined as an equal with the two older countries. New ideas have been
contributed, new and striking illustrations cited, first by the scientists of one
nation, next by those of another. The composite mass of knowledge has
grown as a common possession. Nevertheless, a review of the progress
since 1840 as measured by the contribution of new ideas shows on the
whole America at least equal to its intellectual rivals, and at certain times
actually the leader. This is true of the science of geology as a whole and
also of the subdivision of orogeny.
Thus far no mention has been made of German geologists, with the
exception of Suess, an Austrian. German geology is voluminous and the
names of many well-known geologists could be cited. But this article has
sought to trace the origin and growth of fundamental ideas. The Germans
have been assiduous observers of detail; preeminent as systematizers and
classifiers, seldom originators. Even petrology, which might be regarded as
their especial field, was transplanted from Great Britain. In the science of
mountains they have followed in their fundamental ideas especially the
French.
Turning to the mediums of publication through which this progress of
knowledge in earth structures has been recorded, the American Journal of
Science stands foremost as the only continuous record for the whole century
in American literature, fulfilling for this country what the Quarterly Journal
of the Geological Society has done for Great Britain since 1845, and the
Bulletin de la Société Géologique for France since 1830.

Notes.
78. H. D. Rogers, Geology of New Jersey, Final Report, p. 115, 1840.

79. H. D. Rogers, Geology of Pennsylvania, vol. 2, pt. II, pp. 761, 762, 1858.

80. Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences, 1810; quoted by G. P. Merrill in Contributions
to the History of North American geology, Ann. Rpt. Smithsonian Institution for 1904, p. 216.

81. A Sketch of the geology, mineralogy, and scenery of the regions contiguous to the river
Connecticut; with a geological map and drawings of organic remains; and occasional botanical
notices, the Journal, 6, 1–86, 201–236, 1823; 7, 1–30, 1824.

82. Clarence King, U. S. Geol. Exploration of the Fortieth Parallel, vol. 1, pp. 16, 44–48, 1878.

83. Illustrations of the Huttonian Theory of the Earth, pp. 219–238, 1802.

84. Robert Jameson, Elements of Geognosy, pp. 55–57, 1808.

85. G. P. Merrill, Contributions to the History of American Geology. Report of the U. S.
National Museum for 1904, p. 328.

86. H. D. Rogers, Geology of Pennsylvania, vol. 2, p. 916, 1858.

87. James Hall, Natural History of New York, Paleontology, vol. 3, pp. 51–73, 1859.

88. The Journal, 5, 423–443, 474, 475; 6, 6–14, 104–115, 161–172, 304, 381, 382, 1873.

89. C. R. Van Hise, Principles of North American Pre-Cambrian Geology, U. S. Geol. Surv.,
16th Ann. Report, pt. I, pp. 607–612, 1896.

90. W. N. Rice, On the use of the words synclinorium and anticlinorium, Science, 23, 286, 287,
1906.

91. C. E. Dutton, Critical observations on theories of the earth’s physical evolution, The Penn
Monthly, May and June, 1876.

92. B. Willis, Research in China, vol. 2, 1907.

93. Joseph Barrell, Science, 39, 259, 260, 1909; Jour. Geol., 22, 672–683, 1914.

94. T. C. Chamberlin, Geology, vol. 1, pp. 541, 542, 1904.

95. W. M. Davis, The geological dates of origin of certain topographic forms on the Atlantic
slope of the United States, Geol. Soc. Am. Bull., 2, 541–542, 545–586, 1891.

V
A CENTURY OF GOVERNMENT GEOLOGICAL SURVEYS

By GEORGE OTIS SMITH

Director of the United States Geological Survey

Even a Federal Bureau must be considered a product of evolution: the past
of the United States Geological Survey far antedates March 3, 1879. The
scope of endeavor, the refinement of method, and especially the personnel
of the newly created service of that day were largely inherited from pioneer
organizations. Therefore a review of the country’s record of surveys under
Government auspices becomes more than a grateful acknowledgment by the
present generation of geologists of the credit due to those who blazed the
way; it shows the sequence and progress in the contributions made by
geologic science to industry.
The earlier stages in industrial evolution mentioned by Hess[96]—
exploitation, development, and maturity—determine a somewhat similar
progressive development in geologic investigation, so that geographic
exploration and geologic reconnaissance of the broadest type are the normal
contribution of exact science whenever and wherever a nation is in the state
of exploitation and initial development of its mineral and agricultural
resources. The refinements of detailed surveys and quantitative
examinations belong rather to the next stage of intensive utilization, or,
indeed, they are the essentials preliminary to full use. Thus regrets that the
results of present-day work were not available fifty years ago are largely
vain: the fathers may not have been without the vision; they simply did the
work as their day and generation needed it done.

Twenty years ago S. F. Emmons, in a presidential address before the
Geological Society of Washington, divided the history of Governmental
surveys in this country into two periods, separated in a general way by the
Civil War. The first of these was the period of geographic exploration, the
second that of geologic exploration. Mr. Emmons of course regarded this
subdivision as not hard and fast, yet his dividing line seems logical, for not
only did the military activities in the East necessarily suspend exploration in
the West, but after the war national, political, and economic considerations
led naturally to the demand for a more exact knowledge of the vast national
domain in the West. Geography and geology are so closely related that Mr.
Emmons’s distinction of the two periods is useful only with the limitations
inferentially set by himself—namely, that while geologic investigation
entered into most of the explorations of the earlier period, the geologist was
regarded as only an accessory in these exploring expeditions; on the other
hand, in the later surveys the topographic work was developed because it
was essential to the geologic investigations.
The year 1818 was a notable one in American geology, first of all in the
appearance of the American Journal of Science, itself so perfect a vehicle
for geological thought that, as is so well stated by Dr. G. P. Merrill, “a
perusal of the numbers from the date of issue down to the present time will
alone afford a fair idea of the gradual progress of American geology.” The
beginning of publications on New England geology appeared that year in
Edward Hitchcock’s first paper on the Connecticut Valley (1, 105, 1818)
and the Danas’ (S. L. and J. F.) detailed geologic and mineralogic
description of Boston and vicinity; and the “Index” of Amos Eaton (noticed
in this Journal, 1, 69) was the first of that long list of notable contributions
to American stratigraphy that are to be credited to the New York geologists.
In the present discussion, too, the year 1918 can be regarded as in a way
the centennial of Government geologic surveys, for it was in 1818 that
Henry R. Schoolcraft began his trip to the Mississippi Valley—perhaps the
first geologic reconnaissance into the West—and it was his work in the lead
region which served to make him a member of the Cass expedition sent out
by the Secretary of War in 1820 to examine the metallic wealth of the Lake
Superior region. The earlier Government explorations of Lewis and Clark,
in 1803–7, and of Pike, in 1805–7, were so exclusively geographic that
geologic work under Federal auspices must be regarded as beginning with
Schoolcraft and with Edwin James, the geologist of the expedition of Major

Long in 1819–20 to the Rocky Mountains. Both these observers published
reports that are valuable as contributions to the knowledge of littleknown
regions.
Any description of geologic work under the Federal Government that
included no reference to the State surveys would be inadequate, for in both
date of execution and stage of development the work of the State geologists
must be given precedence. In Merrill’s Contributions to the History of
American Geology,[97] whose modest title fails even to suggest that this
work not only furnishes the most useful chronologic record of the progress
of the science on the American continent but is in fact a very thesaurus of
incidents touching the personal side of geology, the author by his division
of his subject shows that four decades of the era of State surveys elapsed
before the era of national surveys began.
Thus the geologic surveys of some of the Eastern States antedate by
several decades any Federal organization of comparable geologic scope,
and in investigations directed to local utilitarian problems these pioneer
geologists working in the older settled States of the East were in fact
already conducting work as detailed in type as much of that attempted by
the Federal geologists of the later period. Even to-day it is true in a general
way that the State geologist can and should attack many of his local
problems with intensive methods and with detail of results that are neither
practicable nor desirable for the larger interstate investigations or for
examinations in newer territory. All this relation of State and Federal work
must be looked upon as normal evolutionary development of geologic
science in America.
One who reads the names of the Federal geologists of the early days,
beginning with Jackson and Owen and following with such leaders in
Federal work as Gilbert, Chamberlin, King, R. D. Irving, Pumpelly, Van
Hise, and Walcott, may note that these were all connected in their earlier
work with State surveys. Nor has the relation been one-sided, for among the
State geologists Whitney, Blake, Mather, Newberry, J. G. Norwood, Purdue,
Bain, Gregory, Ashley, Kirk, W. H. Emmons, DeWolf, Mathews, Brown,
Landes, Moore, and Crider received their field training in part or wholly as
members of a Federal Survey. Moreover, under the present plan of effective
cooperation of several of the State surveys with the United States
Geological Survey, it is often difficult to differentiate between the two in

either personnel or results, for it even happens that the publishing
organization may not have been the major contributor. The full record of
American geology, past and present, can not be set forth in terms of Federal
auspices alone.
The three decades preceding the Civil War, then, constitute the era of
State surveys, well described by Merrill as at first characterized by a
contagious enthusiasm for beginning geologic work, later by a more normal
condition in which every available geologist seems to have been quietly at
work, and finally by renewed activity in creating new organizations. The
net result was that Louisiana and Oregon seem to have been the only States
not having at least one geological survey.

From “Contributions to the History of American Geology”
by George P. Merrills.

The first specific appropriation by the Federal Government for geologic
investigation appears to have been made in 1834, when a supplemental
appropriation for surveys of roads and canals under the War Department,
authorized in 1824, contained the item “of which sum five thousand dollars
shall be appropriated and applied to geological and mineralogical survey
and researches.” In July, 1834, Mr. G. W. Featherstonhaugh was appointed
United States geologist and employed under Colonel Abert, U. S.
Topographical Engineers, to “personally inspect the mineral and geological

character” of the public lands of the Ozark Mountain region. Overlooking
the incidental fact that this Englishman—a man of scientific attainment and
large interest in public affairs—was never naturalized,[98] it must be placed
to the credit of this first of United States geologists that within seven
months he completed his field work and returned to Washington, and on
February 17, 1835, his report was transmitted to Congress. Two years
earlier Featherstonhaugh had memorialized Congress for aid in the
preparation of a geologic map of the whole territory of the United States,
and in connection with this project he suggested that geology as an aid to
military engineering should have a place in the curriculum at West Point.
This first United States geologist also appears to have combined an
appreciation of the practical worth of “the mineral riches of our country,
their quality, quantity, and the facility of procuring them,” with an interest
in the more scientific side of geology, though his hypotheses regarding both
economic geology and stratigraphic and structural geology have not won
the endorsement of all later workers in the same regions. In all these
respects, however, Featherstonhaugh may stand as a fairly good prototype.
His contributions to international affairs subsequent to his scientific service
to the United States are of interest; he served as one of Her Majesty’s
commissioners in the settlement of the Canadian-United States boundary
question in 1839–40 and made an examination of the disputed area, and
after the settlement of this controversy he was appointed British Consul for
the Department of the Seine, France, where in 1848 he personally
engineered the escape of Louis Philippe from Havre.
The Federal geologic work thus started was soon continued in surveys of
wider scope and more thorough accomplishment. The position of the
Government as the proprietor of mineral lands in the Upper Mississippi
Valley led to their examination. These Government lands containing lead
had been reserved from sale for lease since 1807, although no leases were
issued until 1822. The amount of illegal entry and consequent refusal of
smelters and miners to pay royalty after 1834 forced the issue upon the
attention of Congress, and in 1839 President Van Buren was requested to
present to Congress a plan for the sale of the public mineral lands. In
carrying out this policy Dr. David Dale Owen was selected to make the
necessary survey.
Owen had served as an assistant on the State Survey of Tennessee and as
the first State geologist of Indiana, and he organized the new work promptly

and effectively. Although suffering from the handicap unfortunately known
by geologists of the present day—the receipt late in the season (August 17,
1839) of authority to begin work—within exactly a month he had his force
of 139 assistants organized into 24 field parties, instructed in “such
elementary principles of geology as were necessary to their performance of
the duties required of them.” His plan of campaign provided for a
northward drive at a predetermined rate of traverse for each party, with
periodic reports to himself at appointed stations, “to receive which reports
and to examine the country in person” he crossed the area under survey
eleven times. The result of such masterful leadership was the completion of
the exploration of all the lands comprehended in his orders in two months
and six days, and his report on this great area—about 11,000 square miles—
bears date of April 2, 1840.
Eight years later Doctor Owen made a survey of an even larger area,
continuing his examination northward to Lake Superior. Again his report
was published promptly, and he continued for several years his examination
of the Northwest Territory, submitting his final report in 1851. It is
interesting to note that in his earlier report Doctor Owen subscribed himself
as “Principal Agent to explore the Mineral Lands of the United States,” but
that in the later report he was “U. S. Geologist for Wisconsin.” The two
surveys together covered 57,000 square miles.
During the same period similar surveys were being made in northern
Michigan by Dr. Charles T. Jackson, 1847–48, and Foster and Whitney,
1849–51. These surveys also had been hastened by the “copper fever” of
1844–46, with wholesale issue of permits and leases, Congress in 1847
authorizing the sale of the mineral lands and a geological survey of the
Lake Superior district. The execution of these surveys under Jackson and
under Foster and Whitney and the prompt publication in 1851 of the maps
of the whole region materially helped to establish copper mining on a more
conservative basis. and the development of the Lake Superior region was
rapid.[99]
These land-classification surveys, with their definite purpose, represent
the best geologic work of the time. The plan necessitated thoroughgoing
field work with considerable detail and prompt publication of systematic
reports, and in the working up of the results specialists like James Hall and
Joseph Leidy contributed, while F. B. Meek was an assistant of Owen. It is

worthy of note that had not Doctor Houghton, the State geologist of
Michigan, met an untimely death in 1847, effective cooperation of the State
Survey with the Federal officials would have combined geologic
investigation with the execution of the linear surveys.[100]
Belonging to the same period of geologic exploration was the service of
J. D. Dana, as United States Geologist on the Wilkes Exploring Expedition,
the disaster to which compelled his return from the Pacific Coast overland
and resulted in his geologic observations on Oregon and northern
California.
The military expeditions during the decade 1850–60 and the earlier
expeditions of Fremont added to the geographic knowledge of the Western
country and also contributed to geologic science, largely through collections
of rocks and fossils, usually reported on by the specialists of the day. Thus
the names of Hall, Conrad, Hitchcock, and Meek appear in the published
reports on these explorations, while Marcou, Blake, Newberry, Gibbs,
Evans, Hayden, Parry, Shumard, Schiel, Antisell, and Engelmann were
geologists attached to the field expeditions. In 1852 geologic investigation
was seemingly so popular as to necessitate the statutory prohibition “there
shall be no further geological survey by the Government unless hereafter
authorized by law.”
Certain of these explorations had a specific purpose: several of them
sought a practical route for a transcontinental railroad; another a new wagon
road across Utah and Nevada; and one under Colonel Pope, with G. G.
Shumard as geologist, was sent out “for boring Artesian Wells along the line
of the 32d Parallel” in New Mexico. The published reports varied greatly in
scientific value and in carefulness of preparation, while the publication of at
least two reports was delayed until long after the war, and the manuscript of
another was lost. The report of the expedition of Major Emory contained a
colored geologic map of the western half of the country, a pioneer
publication, for the map prepared by Marcou extended only to the 106th
meridian.
Thus in the first period of Government surveys, covering about forty
years, the great West, with its wealth of public lands, was well traversed by
exploratory surveys, which furnished, however, only general outlines for a
comprehension of the stratigraphy and structure of mountain and valley,
plain and plateau. To an even less degree was there any realization of the

economic possibilities of the vast territory west of the Mississippi. President
Jefferson, in planning the Lewis and Clark expedition, had stated his special
interest in the mineral resources of the region to be traversed. Nearly forty
years later Doctor Owen was strongly impressed with the commercial
promise of the region he surveyed. His reports contain analyses of ores and
statistics of production; he compared the lead output of Wisconsin, Iowa,
and Illinois with that of Europe and foretold the value of the iron, copper,
and zinc deposits of the area; he outlined the extent of the Illinois coal field;
and he laid equal emphasis upon the agricultural possibilities of the region.
Indeed, so optimistic were Owen’s general conclusions that he referred to
his separate township plats, with their detailed descriptions, as the basis for
his sanguine opinions, realizing that “the explorer is apt to become the
special pleader.” With equal breadth of view and thoroughness of execution
the surveys of Foster and Whitney laid the foundation for the development
of the copper and iron resources of the Lake Superior region, and although
these areas were largely wilderness and not adapted to rapid traverse or easy
observation the reports on their explorations nevertheless compare most
favorably with the contributions of geologists working in the more
hospitable regions in the older States.
The period following the Civil War naturally became one of national
expansion, the faces of many were turned westward, and exploration of the
national domain for its industrial possibilities took on fresh interest. Home-
seekers and miners largely made up this army of peaceful invasion, and the
winning of the West began on a scale quite different from that of the days of
the military path-finding expeditions of Fremont and other Army officers.
Thus the nation was aroused to the task of investigating its public lands and
Congress gave the support needed to make geologic exploration possible on
a large scale.
Geologic surveys of a high order were continued in the older States, as
shown by the contributions during this period of J. P. Lesley and G. H.
Cook in the East, W. C. Kerr, E. W. Hilgard, and E. A. Smith in the South,
and J. S. Newberry, C. A. White, Raphael Pumpelly, T. C. Chamberlin,
Alexander Winchell, and T. B. Brooks in the Central States. To the north the
Canadian Survey, organized in 1841 under Logan, had continued under the
same sturdy leadership until 1869, when the experienced and talented
Doctor Selwyn became Director. As contrasted with the short careers of
most of the State Surveys and with the temporary character of all of the

Federal undertakings in geologic investigation, the continuance of the
Canadian Geological Survey for more than half a century under two
directors gave opportunity for continuity of effort in making known to the
people of the Dominion its resources and at the same time contributing to
the world much pure science.
Passing with simple mention the two Government expeditions into the
Black Hills, which afforded opportunity for geologic exploration by N. H.
Winchell in 1874 and by Jenney and Newton in 1875, the record of
geologic work under Government auspices in the period immediately
following the Civil War groups itself around the names of four leaders—
Hayden, King, Powell, and Wheeler. The four organizations, distinguished
commonly by the names of these four masterful organizers, occupied the
Western field more or less continuously from 1867 to 1878, and the sum
total of their contributions to geography and geology was large indeed. In
the words of Clarence King,[101] “Eighteen hundred and sixty-seven,
therefore, marks, in the history of national geological work, a turning point,
when the science ceased to be dragged in the dust of rapid exploration and
took a commanding position in the professional work of the country.”
Together these four expeditions covered half a million square miles, or
more than a third of the area of the United States west of the one-hundredth
meridian, and the cost of all this work was approximately two million
dollars, which was a small fraction of its value to the nation counting only
the impetus given to settlement and utilization.
As viewed from a distance of nearly half a century, these four surveys
differed much in plan of organization, scope of purpose, and success of
execution, so that comparison would have little value except as possibly
bearing upon the work of the larger organization which followed them and
became the heir not only to much that had been attained by these pioneer
surveys but also to the great task uncompleted by them. So, if in the earliest
days of the present United States Geological Survey there may have been a
certain partisanship in tracing derived characters in the new organization, it
is even now worth while to recognize the real origin of much that is
credited to present-day development.
Dr. F. V. Hayden was the first of these Survey leaders to engage in
geological exploration. He visited the Badlands as early as 1853, and his
connection with subsequent expeditions was interrupted only by his service

as a surgeon in the Federal Army during the war. In 1867, however, Hayden
resumed his geologic work as United States Geologist in Nebraska,
operating under direction of the Commissioner of the General Land Office.
In the following eleven years the activities of the Hayden Survey—the
“Geological and Geographical Survey of the Territories”—extended into
Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Montana, and Idaho, covering with
areal surveys 107,000 square miles. This Survey, as might be expected from
the long experience of its leader, made large contributions to stratigraphy,
which involved notable paleontologic work by Cope, Meek, and
Lesquereux. Next in importance was the structural work of A. C. Peale, W.
H. Holmes, Capt. C. E. Dutton, and Dr. Hayden himself, and the influence
of these expeditions in popularizing geology should not be overlooked. The
expedition of 1871 into the geyser region on the upper Yellowstone resulted
in the creation of the first of the national parks. W. H. Holmes began his
artistic contributions to geology in 1872 with this Survey. Topographic
mapping was added to the geologic exploration, James T. Gardner and A. D.
Wilson joining the Hayden Survey after earlier service on the King Survey
and Henry Gannett being a member of parties, first as astronomer and later
as topographer in charge. The accomplishment of the Hayden Survey itself
and the later work of many of its members show that this organization
possessed a corps of strong men.
The King Survey was a smaller organization, with Congressional
authorization of definite scope and a systematic plan of operation. The
beginning of construction of the Union Pacific terminated the period of the
railroad surveys under the War Department and afforded opportunity for
geologic work that would be more than exploratory: the opening up of the
new country made investigation of its resources logical. This fact was
recognized by Clarence King, who had traversed the same route as a
member of an emigrant train with his friend James T. Gardner. His plan to
make a geological cross section of the Cordilleras, with a study of the
resources along the route of the Pacific railroads, won the support of
Congress, and the “Geological Exploration of the Fortieth Parallel” was
authorized in 1867, with Clarence King as geologist in charge, under the
Chief of Engineers of the Army. Field work was begun in the summer of
that year, and it is interesting to note that Mr. King and his small force of
geological assistants—the two Hagues and S. F. Emmons—began at the
western end of this cross section, and in this and subsequent years extended

the survey from the east front of the Sierra Nevada to Cheyenne, covering a
belt of territory about 100 miles in width. This comprehensive plan was
carried out in the field operations, and the scientific and economic results
were systematically worked up in the reports, which appeared in 1870–80.
The only departure from this plan was a study of the volcanic mountains
Shasta, Rainier, and Hood, in 1870, occasioned by an unexpected and
unsolicited appropriation for field work, and that summer’s work resulted in
the discovery of active glaciers, the first known within the United States.
The Fortieth Parallel Survey is to be credited with contributions to the
knowledge of the stratigraphy of the West, the region traversed being
remarkably representative of the stratigraphic column, to which was added
the paleontologic work of Marsh, Meek, Hall, and Whitfield, while the
attempt was made to interpret the sedimentary record in terms of Paleozoic,
Mesozoic, and Tertiary geography. King’s plan of survey included large use
of topographic mapping with astronomic base and triangulation control and
contours based upon barometric elevations. The results were pronounced by
an unfriendly critic[102] as “very valuable, especially from a geological point
of view,” but unfortunate in being the forerunner of work in which
Government geologists “have presumed to arrogate the control of the
fundamental operations of a topographic survey.” To the King Survey must
be credited the introduction of systematic contour mapping and the use of
contour maps for purposes of geology. In two other respects the King
Survey contributed largely to future Government work: microscopical
petrography in the United States may be said to have begun with the visit of
Professor Zirkel to this country as a member of this Survey in 1875, and the
report of J. D. Hague on “Mining Industry” was the fitting expression of the
emphasis then put on the study of the mineral resources of this newly
opened territory, a subject of investigation that was in large part the true
basis of King’s project rather than simply “the immediate excuse for the
Survey.” An earlier influence in the scientific study of ore deposits had
come from Von Richthofen’s investigation of the Comstock Lode in 1865
and his subsequent work with Whitney in California. The incident of King’s
relation to the diamond fraud in Arizona in 1872 furnished a precedent for
public servants of a later day; he investigated the reported find from
scientific interest but exposed it with all the zeal of a publicist and truth
lover. In a word, the Fortieth Parallel Survey commands our admiration for

its brilliant plan, thoroughgoing work in field and office, and high quality of
personnel.

Major J. W. Powell began his large contribution to Government surveys
with his exploration of the Grand Canyon in 1869, the Congressional
recognition of his expedition being limited to an authorization for the issue
of rations by the War Department. Small appropriations were made in the
following years, and in 1874 full authorization was given for the
continuance of his survey in Utah under the Secretary of the Interior and

was followed by the adoption of the name “United States Geographical and
Geological Survey of the Rocky Mountain Region.” This organization was
the least pretentious of the four operating during this period—it covered
less area, expended less public money, and published much less—but its
contribution to American geology is not to be measured by miles or pages
but by ideas. Its physical environment favored this survey, and in the work
of Powell, Dutton, and Gilbert can be seen the beginnings of physiography
on the heroic scale exemplified in the Grand Canyon and the High Plateaus.
The first use of terms like “base-level of erosion,” “consequent and
antecedent drainage,” and “laccolith” marked the introduction of new ideas
in the interpretation of land sculpture and geologic structure. The daring
boat trip of Powell was no less brilliant than his simple explanation of the
Grand Canyon itself.
“The United States Geographical Surveys West of the 100th Meridian”
was the title given to the explorations made under Lieut. G. M. Wheeler, of
the Engineer Corps, which began with topographic reconnaissances in
Nevada, Utah, and Arizona, specifically authorized by Congress in 1872.
From the standpoint of American geology this could be better known as the
Gilbert Survey, Mr. G. K. Gilbert serving for the three years 1871–73, the
later part of the time with the title of chief geological assistant. Gilbert’s
contributions included his description of Basin Range structure, his first
account of old Lake Bonneville, and his discussion of the erosion
phenomena of the desert country. J. J. Stevenson also served later as a
geologist of this Survey, and A. R. Marvine, E. E. Howell, E. D. Cope, Jules
Marcou, and I. C. Russell were connected with the field parties. Captain
Wheeler’s own claim for the work of his Survey emphasized its geographic
side, for he regarded the results as the partial completion of a systematic
topographic survey of the country.
By 1878, when the Fortieth Parallel Survey had completed the work
planned by its chief, three of these independent surveys still contended for
Federal support and for scientific occupation of the most attractive portions
of the Western country. Unrestrained competition of this kind, even in the
public service, proves as wasteful as unregulated competition in private
business,[103] and Congress appealed to the National Academy of Sciences
for a plan for Government surveys to “secure the best results at the least
possible cost.” Under instructions by Congress the National Academy
considered all the work relating to scientific surveys and reported to

Congress a plan prepared by a special committee, whose membership
included the illustrious names of Marsh, Dana, Rogers, Newberry,
Trowbridge, Newcomb, and Agassiz. This report, which was adopted by the
Academy with only one dissenting vote, grouped all surveys—geodetic,
topographic, land parceling, and economic—under two distinct heads,
surveys of mensuration and surveys of geology. At that time five
independent organizations in three different departments were carrying on
surveys of mensuration, and the Academy recommended that all such work
be combined under the Coast and Geodetic Survey with the new name
Coast and Interior Survey. For the investigation of the natural resources of
the public domain and the classification of the public lands a new
organization was proposed, the United States Geological Survey. The
functions of these two surveys and of a third coordinate bureau in the
Interior Department, the Land Office, were carefully defined and their
interrelations fully recognized and provided for in the plan presented to
Congress. Viewed in the light of 39 years of experience the National
Academy plan would be indorsed by most of us as eminently practical, and
the report stands as a splendid example of public service rendered by
America’s leading scientists. The legislation which embodied the entire
plan, however, failed of passage in Congress.
The natural activity behind the scenes of the conflicting interests
represented by those connected with the several surveys may be seen in the
legislative history of the moves leading up to the creation of the United
States Geological Survey. In the last session of the 45th Congress the
special legislation embodying the recommendations of the National
Academy was included in the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial
Appropriation bill as it passed the House of Representatives, while the
Sundry Civil Appropriation bill carried an item simply making effective the
longer section in the other appropriation bill. The item in the Legislative
appropriation bill created the office of the Director of the Geological
Survey, provided his salary, and defined his duties, as well as specifically
terminating the operations of the three older organizations. The item in the
Sundry Civil bill as it passed the House appropriated $100,000 for the new
Geological Survey, but when this appropriation bill was reported to the
Senate a committee amendment added the words “of the Territories,” and
further amendments offered on the floor changed the item so as to provide
specifically and exclusively for the continuation of the Hayden Survey.

Other amendments provided small appropriations for the completion of the
reports of the Powell and Wheeler surveys, and the bill passed the Senate in
this form. The Legislative Appropriation bill was similarly pruned, while in
the Senate, of all reference to the proposed new organization. This bill,
however, died in conference, but in the last hours of the session the
conferees on the Sundry Civil bill took unto themselves legislative powers
and transferred from the dead bill to the pending measure all the language
which constitutes the “organic act” of the United States Geological Survey.
This action was denounced in the Senate as “a wide departure from the
authority that is possessed by a conference committee,” and it was further
stated in debate that the inserted provision which created a new office and
discontinued the existing surveys was one “which neither the Committee of
the Senate nor the Senate itself ever saw.” This assertion was perhaps
parliamentarily sound in that the language was new to the Sundry Civil bill,
yet actually the Senate had only two days before stricken the same proposed
legislation from the pending Legislative Appropriation bill. However, the
House conferees—Representatives Atkins of Tennessee, Hewett of New
York, and Hale of Maine—had realized their tactical advantage, and the
Senate, after a brief debate, voted on March 3 to concur in the report of the
committee of conference, thus reversing all their earlier action, in which the
friends of the Hayden and Wheeler organizations apparently had
commanded more votes than the advocates of the National Academy plan.
Clarence King was appointed first Director of the United States
Geological Survey on April 3, 1879, and began the work of organization.
With his proven genius for administration, King promptly resolved the
doubt as to the meaning of the term “national domain” in the language
defining the duties of the Director by taking the conservative side and
limiting the work of the new organization to the region west of the 102d
meridian. This region was divided into four geological divisions, and for
economy of time and money field headquarters were established for these
divisions. The Division of the Rocky Mountains was placed under Mr.
Emmons as geologist in charge, the Division of the Colorado under Captain
Dutton, the Division of the Great Basin under Mr. Gilbert, and the Division
of the Pacific under Arnold Hague. The Division of the Colorado was
intended as merely temporary for the purpose of bringing to completion the
scientific work of the Powell Survey. Similarly Dr. Hayden was given the
opportunity to prepare a systematic digest of his scientific results. This

organization of the work and the selection of geologists in charge showed
the relation of the new and the old, and a glance at the personnel of the new
Survey indicates the extent to which the geologic investigation of the
Western country was to continue without interruption. Of the twenty-four
geologists and topographers listed in the first administrative report, four had
been connected with the Powell Survey, two with the Hayden, three with
the Wheeler, and five with the King Survey.

In planning the initial work of the United States Geological Survey, the
Director speaks of the “most important geological subjects” and “mining
industries,” of “instructive geological structure” and “great bullion yield” in
the same sentences, so that the intent was plain to make the geologic
investigations both theoretical and practical.
It was expected that the field of operations of this Federal Survey would
be at once extended by Congress over the whole United States, but the
measure making this extension, which would simply carry out the intent of
the framers of the legislation creating the new bureau, passed the House
alone, and it was only by subsequent modification of the wording of
appropriation items that the United States Geological Survey became
national in scope as well as in name. The critical question of the effective
coördination of State and Federal geologic surveys was met by Director
King, who corrected an erroneous impression “industriously circulated” by
stating his policy to be to urge the inauguration and continuance of State
surveys.[104] This was the initial step in the cooperation between State and
Federal surveys which became effective on a large scale in subsequent
years.
Though the Geological Survey has extended its operations over the
whole United States, its largest activities have always been directed toward
the exploration and development of the newer territory in the public-land
States. All four of its directors had their field training in the West: the name
of Major Powell, who succeeded King in 1880, is inseparably connected
with scientific exploration; Charles D. Walcott, who was Director from
1894 to 1907, the period of the Survey’s greatest expansion, made the
largest contribution to the Paleozoic stratigraphy and paleontology of the
West; and the present Director spent seven field seasons in the Northern
Cascades and one in a mining district in Utah. The scope of the activities
both East and West as developed during the 39 years since the
establishment of the new bureau can be best described, perhaps, in terms of
its present functions as expressed in the organization of to-day.
The growth of the Survey is measured in the increase of annual
appropriation from $106,000 in 1879–80 to the amount available for the
current year—$1,925,520, not including half a million dollars from War
Department appropriations being spent in the topographic work of the
Survey. The corresponding increase in personnel has been from 39, listed in

the first report, to 911 holding regular appointments at the present time,
divided among the different branches as follows: A scientific force of 173 in
the Geologic Branch, 169 in the Water Resources Branch, 71 in the
Topographic Branch, and 15 in the Land Classification Board, with a
clerical force of 168 divided among the same branches, and the remainder
the technical and clerical employees of the publication and administrative
branches. These personnel statistics are not expressive of normal
conditions, since a large number of the topographic engineers are
commissioned officers and thus are not included on the civilian roll, while,
on the other hand, the classification of the stock-raising homestead lands
makes the technical force of the Water Resources Branch unusually large
this year.
The primary aim of the Geological Survey is geologic, whether directed
by authority of law toward the “examination of the geological structure,
mineral resources, and products of the national domain,” toward the
preparation of the authorized “reports upon general and economic geology
and paleontology,” of the “geologic map of the United States,” or of the
“report on the mineral resources of the United States,” or toward the
“continuation of the investigation of the mineral resources of Alaska” or
“chemical and physical researches relating to the geology of the United
States.” The spirit and the purpose of the Survey’s work in all these fields
are not believed to have materially changed from those of the founders of
the science in America. From time to time too much emphasis may have
appeared to be laid upon applied geology as contrasted with pure science,
yet the report of the National Academy to Congress in terms placed the
stress upon economic resources and referred to paleontology as “necessarily
connected” with general and economic geology. The practical purpose of
geologic research under Government auspices must be recognized by the
administrator, whether he be the paleontologist like Walcott, the
philosopher like Powell, or the mining geologist like King. That the task of
steering the true course is no new problem can be seen from the statement
of Owen[105] written 70 years ago, and these words describe conditions of
Government geological work even to-day:

Scientific researches, which to some may seem purely speculative and curious, are essential as
preliminaries to these practical results. Further than such necessity dictates, they have not been
pushed, except as subordinate and incidental, and chiefly at such periods as, under the ordinary
requirements of public service, might be regarded as leisure moments; so that the contributions to

science thus incidentally afforded, and which a liberal policy forbade to neglect, may be considered,
in a measure, a voluntary offering, tendered at little or no additional expense to the department.

The increased attention given to mineral resources has been a matter of
gradual growth. Mr. King early organized a Division of Mining Geology
with Messrs. Pumpelly, Emmons, and Becker as geologists in charge, to
whom were assigned the collection of mineral statistics for the Tenth
Census. These Survey geologists and Director King himself held
appointments as special agents of the Census Bureau, and on the staff
selected for this work appear the names of T. B. Brooks, Edward Orton, T.
C. Chamberlin, Eugene A. Smith, George Little, J. R. Proctor, R. D. Irving,
N. S. Shaler, John Hays Hammond, Bailey Willis, and G. H. Eldridge,
indicating the extent to which the supervision of these inquiries was placed
in the hands of economic geologists. This procedure was reverted to by
Director Walcott and in the last ten years has become a well-established
policy, the statistics of annual production of all the important mineral
products being under the charge of geologists, as best qualified to
comprehend the resources of the country. Another of these special assistants
in 1880 was Albert Williams, Jr., who became the first chief of the Division
of Mineral Resources, in 1882. The study of ore deposits, which may be
said to have begun with the King Survey, was inspired by King’s own
appreciation of the broad geologic relations of the distribution of mineral
wealth and by the detailed studies of individual mining districts by his
associates, “based upon facts accurately determined in the light of modern
geology.”
Geological surveys have been prosecuted in Alaska since 1895, and in
the last few years the annual appropriation for the work has been the same
as that made for the expenses of the whole Survey in the first year of its
history. The Division of Alaskan Mineral Resources is in fact a geological
survey in itself, except that it shares in the administrative machinery of the
larger organization and has the advantage of the cooperation of the
scientific specialists of the Survey as they may be needed to supplement its
own force. All the investigations in this distant part of the country represent
the Geological Survey at its best, for here the organization’s long
experience in the Western States can be applied to most effective and
helpful work on the frontier, where the geologist and topographer in their
exploration do not always follow the prospector but often precede him.

Undoubtedly no greater factor has contributed to the development of
Alaskan resources than this pioneer work of the Federal Survey, yet the
work has also contributed notable additions to the sciences of geology and
geography.
The first duty laid upon the Director of the Geological Survey in the law
of 1879 was “the classification of the public lands,” and this phrase
undoubtedly expressed the idea of the committee of the National Academy.
The same legislation, however, contained provision for the further
consideration by a commission of the classification and valuation of the
public lands, as also recommended by the National Academy. Thus the
decision of Director King that the classification intended by Congress was
scientific and was intended for general information and not to aid the Land
Office in the disposition of land by sale or otherwise was really based upon
the deliberate opinion of the Public Lands Commission, of which he was a
member, that classification would seriously impede rapid settlement of the
unoccupied lands. Nearly forty years later those who are intrusted with the
land-classification work of the Geological Survey recognize this familiar
argument, which undoubtedly had much more force in that earlier stage of
the utilization of the Nation’s resources of land.[106] The conception of land
classification as a business policy on the part of the Government as a landed
proprietor belongs rather to this day of more intensive development. At
present current public-land legislation calls for highest use, and hence
official investigation of natural values and possibilities must precede
disposition. This type of mineral and hydrographic classification of public
lands has been in progress in increasing amount since 1906, so that now the
Geological Survey is the kind of scientific adviser to the Secretary of the
Interior and Commissioner of the General Land Office that may have been
contemplated by the National Academy of Sciences in 1878. It is plain,
however, to everyone at all conversant with Western conditions that the
recent land-classification surveys in Wyoming, for instance—detailed
geologic surveys which form the basis for the valuation of public coal lands
in 40–acre units—would have possessed no utility in 1871, when the coal-
land law was passed but when the demand for railroad fuel had just begun.
The land-classification idea is of course the basis of the National forest
and irrigation movements. The laws of 1888 and 1896, which mark the
beginning of active endorsement by Congress of these conservation
movements, placed upon the Survey the duties of examining reservoir sites

and forest reserves respectively. The earlier of these laws began the
investigation of the water resources of the country, which is still an
important phase of the Survey’s activity, and led to the creation of an
independent organization—the Reclamation Service. It is easy to trace the
beginnings of Federal reclamation of arid lands in the pioneer work of
Powell, whose report in 1878 on the arid region of the United States was the
first adequate statement of the problem of largest use of these lands in terms
broader than those of individualistic endeavor. For years, however, Powell’s
appeal for Congressional consideration of this National task was like the
“voice of one crying in the wilderness.”
In a somewhat similar way the forestry surveys under the Geological
Survey helped in the organization of a separate bureau—now the Forest
Service. The other important Federal bureau tracing direct relationship to
the Survey is the Bureau of Mines, established in 1910, which continued the
investigations in mining technology specifically provided for by Congress
for six years under the Geological Survey but in some degree begun in the
early days of the Survey under Directors King and Powell.
Another equally important organization of a public nature, though not a
Federal bureau, traces its beginnings to the Geological Survey: the
Geophysical Laboratory of the Carnegie Institution, which now exercises so
potent an influence over geologic investigation, had its origin in the official
work of the Geological Survey’s Division of Chemical and Physical
Research, and its personnel was at first largely recruited from the Survey.
The highly original experimental work of this laboratory has extended far
beyond the scope of the Survey’s work—at least far beyond the scope
possible with the Federal funds available—yet most of the results of these
investigations may eventually come under even a strict construction of the
language used in the Survey’s appropriation “for chemical and physical
researches relating to the geology of the United States.”
The topographic work of the present Survey continues with constant
refinement of standards and economy of methods the work of the earlier
organizations. The primary purpose of these topographic surveys is to
provide the bases for geologic maps, yet these topographic maps, which
cover 40 per cent of the area of the United States, are used in every type of
civil engineering as well as by the public generally. The annual distribution

by sale of half a million of these maps is an index of their value to the
people.
The hot discussion that was waged for years on the question of military
versus scientific administration of topographic surveys is in striking
contrast with the present concentration of all the topographic mapping
under the Geological Survey in those areas where it may best serve the
needs of the Army. In 1916 Congress specifically recognized the possibility
of greater cooperation of this kind, both in the appropriation made to the
Geological Survey and in a special appropriation made to the War
Department. For a number of years indeed special military information had
been contributed to the Army by the Survey topographers, but since March
26, 1917, every Geological Survey topographer has worked exclusively on
the program of military surveys laid down by the General Staff of the Army,
and the places of some of the 44 Survey topographers now in France as
engineer officers are filled by 34 other reserve engineer officers detailed by
order of the Secretary of War to the Director of the Geological Survey to
assist in this military mapping and to receive instruction fitting them in turn
for topographic service in France.
The contribution of this civilian service to the military operations in the
present emergency forms a fitting conclusion to this review of a century of
Government surveys. At present 215 members of the Geological Survey are
in uniform, 107 as engineer officers, two of whom are on the staff of the
American Commanding General in France. In the war work carried on in
the United States the Survey’s contribution is by no means limited to
military mapping: the geologists are also mobilized for meeting war needs,
assisting in developing new sources of the essential war minerals, in
speeding up production of mineral products, in collecting information for
the purchasing officers both of our own and of the Allied governments, in
coöperating with the constructing quarter-masters in the location of gravel
and sand for structural use and in both general and special examinations of
underground water supply and of drainage possibilities at cantonment sites,
and in supplying the Navy Department with similar technical data. A special
contribution has been the application to aërial surveys of photogrammetric
methods developed in the Alaskan topographic work and the perfection of a
camera specially adapted to airplane use. The utilization of the Survey’s
map engraving and printing plant for confidential and urgent work for both
the Army and Navy has necessitated postponement of current work for the

Geological Survey itself. Throughout the organization the records, the
methods, and the personnel which represent the product of many years of
scientific activity are all being utilized; thus is the experience of the past
translated into special service in the present crisis.

Notes.
96. Hess, R. H., Foundations of National Prosperity, p. 100.

97. Report Nat’l Museum, 1904, pp. 189–733.

98. Featherstonhaugh, J. D., Am. Geol., 3, 220, 1889.

99. Whitney, Mineral Wealth of the United States, pp. 248–250.

100. Foster and Whitney, 31st Cong., 1st session, House Doc. 69, pp. 13–14, 1850.

101. First Annual Rept. U. S. Geol. Survey, p. 4.

102. Wheeler, Report 3d Internat’l Geog. Cong., p. 492, 1885.

103. The views of the writer on “natural monopolies” in the Government service are set forth in
an address delivered at the centennial celebration of the U. S. Coast and Geodetic Survey, April 5,
1916. (See Science, vol. 43, pp. 659–665, May 12, 1916.)

104. For correspondence on this subject, see Minnesota Geol. Survey, Eighth Ann. Rept., 1880,
p. 173.

105. Owen, D. D., 30th Cong., 1st sess., Senate Doc. No. 57, p. 7, 1848.

106. This essential difference between present-day requirements and the needs of earlier
generations has been discussed by W. C. Mendenhall, the geologist in charge of the Land
Classification Board of the Geological Survey: Proceedings 2d Pan-American Sci. Cong., 1915–16,
3, 761.

VI
ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF VERTEBRATE
PALEONTOLOGY

By RICHARD SWANN LULL

Introduction.

Unlike its sister science of Invertebrate Paleontology, which has been
approached so largely from the viewpoint of stratigraphic geology, that of
the vertebrates is essentially a biologic science, having its inception in the
masterly work of Cuvier, who is also to be regarded as the founder of
comparative anatomy. For long decades, vertebrate paleontology was
simply a branch of comparative anatomy or morphology in that it dealt
almost exclusively with the form and other peculiarities of fossil bones and
teeth, often in a more or less fragmentary condition, very little or no
attention being paid to any other system of the creature’s anatomy.
Distribution both in space and in time was recorded, but the value of
vertebrates in stratigraphy was still to be appreciated and has hardly yet
come into its own. It is readily seen, therefore, that the two departments of
paleontology did not enlist the same workers or even the same type of
investigators, for while the two sciences have much in common and should
have more, the vertebratist must, above all else, be a morphologist, with a
keen appreciation of form, and a mind capable of retaining endless
structural details and of visualizing as a whole what may be known only in
part. The initial work of the brilliant Cuvier set so high a standard of
preparedness and mental equipment that as a consequence, the number of
those engaged in vertebrate research has never been large as compared with

the workers in some other branches of science, but the results achieved by
the few who have consecrated their research to the fossil vertebrates has
been in the main of a high order.
At first, as has been emphasized, this work was largely morphological,
dealing both with the individual skeletal elements and later with the bony
framework as a whole. Then came the endeavor to clothe the bones with
sinews and with flesh—to imagine, in other words, the life-appearance of
the ages-departed form—with such of its habits as could be deduced from
structure of body, tooth, and limb. Next came the working out of systematic
series of vertebrates and their marshalling into species, genera, and larger
groups, and much time was thus spent, especially when rapid discovery
brought a continual stream of new forms before the systematist, and hence
some appreciation of the countless hosts of bygone creatures which peopled
the world in the geologic past. This systematic work, however, was based
upon the most painstaking morphologic comparisons and so the science was
still within the scope of comparative anatomy.
In connection with taxonomic research came increasingly tangible
evidence in favor of the law of evolution; investigators turned to the
working out of phyletic series showing the actual record of the successive
evolutionary changes that the various races had undergone. Coupled with
this evolutionary evidence came an increased attention to the sequential
occurrence in successive geologic strata, and the stratigraphic distribution
of vertebrates became known with greater and greater detail. Then followed
the assemblage of faunas, which brought the study of the fossil forms
within the realm of historical geology, rather than being the mere phylogeny
of a single race, and the value of vertebrate fossils as horizon markers
became more and more appreciated by the stratigrapher. They serve to
supplement the knowledge gained from the invertebrates, and in this
connection are especially valuable in that they often give data concerning
continental formations about which invertebrate paleontology is largely
silent.

Rise of Vertebrate Paleontology in Europe.

To those who had been nurtured in the belief in a relatively recent
creation covering in its entirety a period of but six days, and occurring but
four millenniums before the time of Christ, the appearance of the remains of
creatures in the rocks, the like of which no man ever saw alive, must have
given scope to the wildest imaginings concerning their origin and
significance; for many believed that not only had no new forms been added
to the world’s fauna since the creation, except possibly by hybridizing, but
that none had become extinct save a very few through the agency of human
interference. The supposition was, therefore, that such creatures as were
thus discovered were still extant in some more remote fastnesses of the
world. Thus, our second president, Thomas Jefferson, who wrote one of the
first papers on American fossil vertebrates, published in 1798, discussed
therein the remains of a huge ground-sloth which has since borne the name
Megalonyx jeffersoni. Jefferson, however, described the great claws as
pertaining to a huge leonine animal which he firmly believed was yet living
among the mountains of Virginia.
Cuvier (1769–1832) has been spoken of as the founder of our science.
His opportunity lay in the profusion of bones buried in the gypsum deposits
of Montmartre within the environs of the city of Paris. Cuvier’s studies of
these remains, done in the light of his very broad anatomical knowledge,
enabled him to prepare the first reconstructions of fossil vertebrates ever
attempted and to bring before the eyes of his contemporaries a world
peopled with forms which were utterly extinct. That these creatures were no
longer living, none was a better judge than Cuvier, for his prominence was
such that material was sent him from all parts of the world, to which must
be added that which he saw in his visits to the various museums of Europe.
He felt it safe, therefore, to affirm the unlikelihood of any further discovery
of unknown forms among the great mammals of the present fauna of our
globe, and few indeed have been the additions since his day. To Cuvier is
due not alone the masterly contribution to the sister sciences of comparative
anatomy and vertebrate paleontology—the Ossements Fossiles (1812)—but
he also announced the presence in continental strata of a series of faunas
which showed a gradual organic improvement from the earliest such

assemblage to the most modern, an idea of the most fundamental
importance and one with which he is rarely credited. He believed in the
sudden and complete extinction of faunas, and the facts then known were in
accord with this idea, as no common genera nor transitional forms
connected the creatures of the Paris gypsum with the mastodons, elephants,
and hippopotami which the later strata disclosed. It is not remarkable,
therefore, that Cuvier advanced his theory of catastrophism to account for
these extinctions. He should not, however, according to Depéret, be credited
with the idea of successive re-creations, such as that held by D’Orbigny and
others, but of repopulation by immigration from some area which the
catastrophe, be it flood or other destructive agency, failed to reach.
Cuvier was followed in Europe by a number of illustrious men, none of
whom, however, with the exception of Sir Richard Owen, possessed his
breadth of knowledge of comparative anatomy upon which to base their
researches among the prehistoric. The more notable of them may be
enumerated before going on to a discussion of the American contributions
to the science.
They were, first, Louis Agassiz, a pupil of Cuvier and later a resident of
America, whose researches on the fossil fishes of Europe are a monumental
work, the result of ten years of investigation in all of the larger museums of
that continent, and which appeared in 1833–43, while he was yet a young
man. The fishes were practically the only fossil vertebrates to come within
the scope of his investigations, for his later time was consumed in the study
of glaciers and of recent marine zoology. Another student of these most
primitive vertebrates who left an enduring monument was Johannes Mϋller.
Huxley, Traquair, and Jaekel also did masterly work upon this group, while
Smith Woodward of the British Museum is considered the highest living
authority upon fossil fishes.
Of the Amphibia, the most famous foreign students were Brongniart,
Jaeger, Burmeister, Von Meyer, and Owen, although Owen’s claim to
eminence lies rather in the investigations of fossil reptiles which he began
in 1839 and continued over a period of fifty years of remarkable
achievement. Not only did he describe the dinosaurs of Great Britain in a
series of splendidly illustrated monographs, but extended his researches to
the curious reptilian forms from the Karroo formation of South Africa. It
was to him, moreover, that the establishment of the true position of the

famous Archœopteryx as the earliest known bird and not a reptile is due.
Von Meyer also enriched the literature of fossil reptiles, discussing
exhaustively those occurring in Germany, while Huxley’s classic work on
the crocodiles as well as on dinosaurs, and the labors of Buckland, Fraas,
Koken, Von Huene, Gaudry, Hulke, Seeley, and Lydekker have added
immensely to our knowledge of the group.
Of the birds, which at best are rare as fossils, our knowledge, especially
of the huge flightless moas, is due largely again to Owen, and his
realization of the systematic position of Archœopteryx has already been
mentioned.
The mammals were, perhaps, the most prolific source of paleontological
research during the nineteenth century, for, as Zittel has said, Cuvier’s
famous investigations on the fossil bones, mentioned above, not only
contain the principles of comparative osteology, but also show in a manner
which has never been surpassed how fossil vertebrates ought to be studied,
and what are the broad inductions which may be drawn from a series of
methodical observations. Such was Cuvier’s influence that until Darwin
began to interest himself in mammalian paleontology the study of these
forms was conducted entirely along the lines indicated by the French
savant. This was seen in a large work, Osteology of Recent and Fossil
Mammalia, by De Blainville, which, although not up to the standard set by
the master, is nevertheless a notable contribution, as was also the Osteology
prepared by Pander and D’Alton. A summary of the knowledge of the fossil
Mammalia up to the year 1847 is contained in Giebel’s Fauna der Vorwelt,
and Lydekker has done for the mammals in the British Museum what Smith
Woodward did for the fishes, producing vastly more than the mere
catalogue which the title implies.
The first work wherein the fossil mammals were treated genealogically
was Gaudry’s Enchaînements du Monde Animal, written in 1878. Other
work on the fossil Mammalia was done by Kaup, who described those from
the Mainz basin and from Epplesheim near Worms whence came one of the
most famous of prehistoric horses, the Hipparion; this horse, together with
the remarkable proboscidean Dinotherium, was described by Von Meyer.
One of the most remarkable discoveries, ranking in importance, perhaps,
next to Montmartre, was that of the Pliocene fauna of Pikermi near Athens,
Greece, first made known through the publications of A. Wagner of Munich

and later, and much more extensively, through that of Gaudry (1862–1867).
H. von Meyer was Germany’s best authority on fossil Mammalia. After his
death the work was carried on by Quenstedt, Oscar Fraas, Schlosser, Koken,
and Pohlig, among others.
In France, rich deposits of fossil mammals were discovered in the
Department of Puy-de-Dôme, the Rhone basin, Sansan, Quercy, and near
Rheims. These were described by a number of writers, notably Croizet and
Jobert, Pomel, Lartet, Filhol, and Lemoine.
Rütimeyer of Bâle was one of the most famous European writers on
mammalian paleontology, and his researches were both comprehensive and
clothed in such form as to give them a high place in paleontological
literature. He studied comparatively the teeth of ungulates, discussed the
genealogy of mammals, and the relationships of those of the Old and New
Worlds. He was an exponent of the law of evolution as set forth by Darwin,
and his “genealogical trees of the Mammalia show a complete knowledge
of all the data concerning the different members in the succession, and are
amongst the finest results hitherto obtained by means of strict scientific
methods of investigation” (Zittel, History of Geology and Palæontology,
1901). The mammals of the Swiss Eocene have been studied in much detail
by Stehlin.
For Great Britain, the most notable contributors were Buckland in his
Reliquiæ Diluvianæ; Falconer, co-author with Cautley on the Tertiary
mammals of India; Charles Murchison, who wrote on rhinoceroses and
proboscideans; and more recently Bush, Flower, Lydekker, Boyd Dawkins,
L. Adams, and C. W. Andrews. But by far the most commanding figure of
all was Sir Richard Owen, who for half a century stood without a peer as
the greatest of authorities on fossil mammals. It was the Natural History of
the British Fossil Mammals and Birds, published in 1846, that established
Sir Richard’s reputation.
Russia has produced much mammalian material, especially from the
Tertiary of Odessa and Bessarabia, and from the Quaternary of northern
Russia and Siberia. These have been described mainly by J. F. Brandt, A.
von Nordmann, but especially by Mme. M. Pavlow of Moscow.
Forsyth-Major discovered in 1887 a fauna contemporaneous with that of
Pikermi in the Island of Samos in the Mediterranean.

One of the most remarkable recent discoveries of fossil localities was that
announced in 1901 by Mr. Hugh J. L. Beadnell of the Geological Survey of
Egypt and Doctor C. W. Andrews of the British Museum of London, of
numerous land and sea mammals of Upper Eocene and Lower Oligocene
age in northern Egypt. The exposures lay about 80 miles southwest of Cairo
in the Fayûm district and are the sediments of an ancient Tertiary lake, a
relic of which, Birket-el-Qurun, yet remains. These beds contained ancient
Hyracoidea, Sirenia, and Zeuglodontia, but above all, ancestral Proboscidea
which, together with those known elsewhere, enabled Andrews to
demonstrate the origin and evolutionary features of this most remarkable
group of beasts. This discovery in the Fayûm lends color to the belief that
Africa may have been the ancestral home of at least five of the mammalian
orders, those mentioned above, together with the Embrithopoda, a group
unknown elsewhere. This theory had been advanced independently by
Tullberg, Stehlin, and Osborn, before the discovery in Egypt.
Another European worker of pre-eminence who wrote more broadly than
the faunal studies mentioned above was W. Kowalewsky. He discussed
especially the evolutionary changes of feet and teeth in ungulates, a line of
research afterward developed in greater detail by the Americans, Cope and
Osborn.
South America has yielded series of rich faunas which have been
exploited by the great Argentinian, Florentino Ameghino, and by the
Europeans, Owen, Gervais, Huxley, Von Meyer, and more recently by
Burmeister and Lydekker. Later exploration and research by Hatcher and
Scott of North America will be discussed further on in this paper.

Vertebrate Paleontology in America.

Early Writers.—Having thus summarized paleontological progress in the
Old World, we can turn to a consideration of the work done in the New,
especially in the United States, because while the Old World investigation
has been invaluable, a science of vertebrate paleontology, very complete
both as to its zoological and geological scope and in the extent and value of
published results, could be built exclusively upon the discoveries and
researches made by Americans. The science of vertebrate paleontology may
be said to have had its beginnings in North America with the activities of
Thomas Jefferson, who, like Franklin, felt so strong an interest in scientific
pursuits that even the graver duties of the highest office in the gift of the
American people could not deter him from them. When in 1797 Jefferson
came to be inaugurated as vice-president of the United States, he brought
with him to Philadelphia not only his manuscript but the actual fossil bones
upon which it was based. Again in 1801 he was greatly interested in the
Shawangunk mastodon, despite heavy cares of state, and in 1808 made part
of the executive mansion in Washington serve as a paleontological
laboratory, displaying therein for study the bones of proboscideans and their
contemporaries which the Big Bone Lick of Kentucky had produced.
Jefferson’s work would not, perhaps, have been epoch-making were it not
for its unique chronological position in the annals of the science.
Jefferson was followed by another man—this time one whose diverging
lines of interest led him not into the realm of political service, but of art, for
Rembrandt Peale possessed an enviable reputation among the early painters
of America. Peale published in 1802 an account of the skeleton of the
“mammoth,” really the mastodon, M. americanus, speaking of it as a
nondescript carnivorous animal of immense size found in America. It was
because of the form of the molar teeth that Peale said of it: “If this animal
was indeed carnivorous, which I believe cannot be doubted, though we may
as philosophers regret it, as men we cannot but thank Heaven that its whole
generation is probably extinct.”
With the work of these men as a beginning, it is not strange that the more
conspicuous Pleistocene fossils of the East should have attracted the
attention of many subsequent writers in the first part of the nineteenth

century, nor that the early papers to appear in the Journal should pertain to
proboscideans or to the huge edentate ground-sloths and the aberrant
zeuglodons whose bones frequently came to light. Therefore a number of
men such as Koch, both Sillimans, J. C. Warren, and others made these
forms their chief concern.
Fossil Footprints.—Among the early writers who concerned themselves
with these greater fossils was Edward Hitchcock, sometime president of
Amherst College, and a geologist of high repute among his contemporaries.
Hitchcock is, however, better and more widely known as the pioneer worker
on a series of phenomena displayed as in no other place in the region in
which he made his home. These are fossil footprints impressed upon the
Triassic rocks of the Connecticut valley. It was in the Journal for the year
1836 (29, 307–340) that Hitchcock first called attention to the footmarks,
although they had been known and discussed popularly for a number of
years previous. James Deane, of Greenfield, was perhaps the first to
appreciate the scientific interest of these phenomena, but deeming his own
qualifications insufficient properly to describe them, he brought them to the
attention of Hitchcock, and the interest of the latter never waned until his
death in 1864. Hitchcock wrote paper after paper, publishing many of them
in the Journal, again in his Final Report on the Geology of Massachusetts
(1841), and later in quarto works, one in the Memoirs of the American
Academy of Arts and Sciences and the two others under the authority of the
Commonwealth, the Ichnology in 1858, and the Supplement in 1865, the
last being a posthumous work edited by his son, Charles H. Hitchcock.
Hitchcock’s conception of the track-makers was more or less imperfect
because of the fact that for a long time but a few fragmentary osseous
remains were known, either directly or indirectly associated with the tracks,
while on the other hand the bird-like character of many of the latter and the
discovery of huge flightless birds elsewhere on the globe suggested a very
close analogy if not a direct relationship. Hence “bird tracks” they were
straightway called, a designation which it has been difficult to remove, even
though in 1843 Owen called attention to the need of caution in assuming the
existence of so highly organized birds at so early a period, especially when
large reptiles were known which might readily form very similar tracks.
The footprints are now believed to be very largely of dinosaurian origin,
and dinosaurs whose feet corresponded in every detail with the footprints
have actually come to light within the same geologic and geographic

limitations. This of course refers to the bipedal, functionally three-toed
tracks. Of the makers of certain of the obscurer of the quadrupedal trails we
are as much in the dark to-day as were the first discoverers of a century ago,
so far as demonstrable proof is concerned. We assume, however, that they
were the tracks of amphibia and reptiles, beyond which we may not go with
certainty.
Agassiz, writing in 1865 (Geological Sketches), says:

“To sum up my opinion respecting these footmarks, I believe that they were made by animals of a
prophetic type, belonging to the class of reptiles, and exhibiting many synthetic characters. The more
closely we study past creations, the more impressive and significant do the synthetic types,
presenting features of the higher classes under the guise of the lower ones, become. They hold the
promise of the future. As the opening overture of an opera contains all the musical elements to be
therein developed, so this living prelude of the creative work comprises all the organic elements to be
successively developed in the course of time.”

Of those whose work was contemporaneous with that of Hitchcock, but
one, W. C. Redfield, wrote on Triassic phenomena, and he concerned
himself mainly with the fossil fishes of that time, his first paper on this
subject appearing in 1837 in the Journal (34, 201), and the last twenty years
later.
Paleozoic Vertebrates.—Later the vertebrates of the Paleozoic began to
attract attention, footprints from Pennsylvania being described by Isaac Lea,
beginning in 1849, a notice of his first paper appearing in the Journal for
that year (9, 124). Several papers followed on the reptile Clepsysaurus.
Alfred King also wrote on the Carboniferous ichnites, his work slightly
antedating that of Lea, but being less authoritative.
But by far the most illuminating of the mid-century writers on Paleozoic
vertebrates was Sir William Dawson, a very large proportion of whose
numerous papers relate to the Coal Measures of Nova Scotia and their
contained plant and animal remains. In 1853 appeared Dawson’s first
announcement, written in collaboration with Sir Charles Lyell, of the
finding of the bones of vertebrates within the base of an upright fossil tree
trunk at South Joggins. These bones were identified by Owen and Wyman
as pertaining to a reptilian or amphibian to which the name Dendrerpeton
acadianum was given. Following this were several papers published in the
Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society, London, describing more

vertebrates and associated terrestrial molluscs. In 1863 Dawson
summarized his discoveries in the Journal (36, 430–432) under the title of
“Air-breathers of the Coal Period,” a paper which was expanded and
published under the same title in the Canadian Naturalist and Geologist for
the same year. Dawson also printed in the same volume the first account of
reptilian(?) footprints from the coal. Thus from time to time there emanated
from his prolific pen the account of further discoveries, both in bones and
footprints, his final synopsis of the air-breathing animals of the Paleozoic of
Canada appearing in 1895. The only other group of vertebrates which
claimed his attention were certain whales, on which he occasionally wrote.
Fishes.—The fossil fishes from the Devonian of Ohio found their first
exponent in J. S. Newberry, appointed chief geologist of the second
geological survey of Ohio, which was established in 1869. These fishes
from the Devonian shales belonged for the greater part to the curious group
of armored placoderms, the remains of which consist very largely of armor
plates with little or no traces of internal skeleton. There was also found in
association a shark, Cladoselache, of such marvelous preservation that from
some of the Newberry specimens now in the American Museum of Natural
History, New York, Bashford Dean has demonstrated the histology of
muscle and visceral organs, in addition to the very complete skeletal
remains.
Newberry’s work on these forms, begun in 1868, has been carried to
further completion by Bashford Dean and his pupil L. Hussakof, as well as
by C. R. Eastman. Newberry’s other paleontological work was with the
Carboniferous fishes of Ohio, the Carboniferous and Triassic fishes of the
region from Sante Fé to the Grand and Green rivers, Colorado, and on the
fishes and plants of the Newark system of the Connecticut valley and New
Jersey. He also discussed certain mastodon and mammoth remains, and
those of the peccary of Ohio, Dicotyles.

Joseph Leidy (1823–1891).

We now come to a consideration of the work of Joseph Leidy, one of the
three great pioneers in American vertebrate paleontology, for if we
disregard the work of Hitchcock and others on the fossil footprints, few of
the results thus far obtained were based upon the fruits of organized
research. Leidy began his publication in 1847 and continued to issue papers
and books from time to time until the year 1892, having published no fewer
than 219 paleontological titles, and 553 all told. His earlier paleontological
researches were exclusively on the Mammalia, which were then coming in
from the newly discovered fossil localities of the West. The discovery of
these forms, one of the most notable events in the history of our science,
will bear re-telling.
The first announcement was made in 1847, when Hiram A. Prout of St.
Louis published in the Journal (3, 248–250) the description of the maxillary
bone of “Palæotherium” (= Titanotherium proutii)from near White River,
Nebraska. This at once drew the attention of geologists and paleontologists
to the Bad Lands, or Mauvaises Terres, which were to prove so highly
productive of fossil forms. About the same time S. D. Culbertson of
Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, submitted to the Academy of Natural
Sciences at Philadelphia some fossils sent to him from Nebraska by
Alexander Culbertson. These were afterward described by Leidy in the
Proceedings of the Academy, together with the paleotheroid jaw, in addition
to which three other collections which had been made were also placed at
his disposal for study.
This aroused the interest of Doctor Spencer F. Baird of the Smithsonian
Institution, who sent T. A. Culbertson to the Bad Lands to make further
collections. The latter was successful in securing a valuable series of
mammalian and chelonian remains. These, together with other specimens
from the same locality, were sent to Leidy, for, as Baird remarked, Leidy,
although only thirty years of age, was the only anatomist in the United
States qualified to determine their nature. The outcome of Leidy’s study of
this material was “The Ancient Fauna of Nebraska,” published in 1853, and
constituting the most brilliant work which up to that time American
paleontology had produced. Leidy’s determinations, which are in the main

correct, are the more remarkable when it is realized that he had little recent
osteological material for comparative study. The forms thus described by
him were new to science, of a more generalized character than those now
living, and yet their distinguished describer recognized, either at that time
or a little later, their true relationship to the modern types. The extent of
Leidy’s anatomical knowledge was almost Cuvierian, and Cuvier-like he
established the fact of the presence of the rhinoceroses, then unheard of in
the American fauna, from a few small fragments of molar teeth, an opinion
shortly to be fully sustained through the finding of complete molars and the
entire skull of the same individual animal.
Leidy next turned his attention to the huge edentates, which he studied
exhaustively, publishing his results in the form of a memoir in 1855, two
years after the appearance of the “Ancient Fauna.”
Extinct fishes of the Devonian of Illinois and Missouri and the Devonian
and Carboniferous of Pennsylvania were made the subjects of his next
researches, after which he described the peccaries of Ohio, and later, in a
much larger and most important work, the Cretaceous reptiles of the United
States (1865). Most of the fossils discussed in this last work are from the
New Jersey Cretaceous marls and of them the most notable was the
herbivorous dinosaur Hadrosaurus, the structure and habits of which,
together with its affinities with the Old World iguanodons, Leidy described
in detail. From Leidy’s descriptions and with his aid, Waterhouse Hawkins
was enabled to restore a replica of the skeleton in a remarkably efficient
way. This restoration for a long time graced the museum of the Philadelphia
Academy of Natural Sciences and there was a plaster replica of it in the
United States National Museum. These, together with plaster replicas of
Iguanodon from the Royal College of Surgeons in London, gave to
Americans their first real conceptions of members of this most remarkable
group. The associated fossils from the New Jersey marls were chiefly
crocodiles and turtles.
From 1853 to 1866 F. V. Hayden was carrying on a series of most
energetic explorations in the West, especially in Nebraska and Dakota as
then delimited, returning from each trip laden with fossils which were given
to Leidy for determination. The results appeared in 1869 in Leidy’s Extinct
Mammalian Fauna of Dakota and Nebraska, published as volume 7 of the
Journal of the Philadelphia Academy. In this large volume no fewer than

seventy genera and numerous species of forms, many of them new to
science, were described, representing many of the principal mammalian
orders; horses were, however, especially conspicuous. This last group led
Leidy to the conclusion, afterward emphasized by Huxley, that North
America was the home of the horse in geologic time, there being here a
greater representation of different species than in any recent fauna of the
world. Leidy’s interest in the horses, for the forwarding of which he made a
large collection of recent material, extended over many years, as his first
paper on the subject bears the date of 1847, the last that of 1890.
Next came the discovery of Eocene material from the vicinity of Fort
Bridger, Wyoming, geologically older than the Nebraska and Dakota
formations. This, together with specimens from the Green River and
Sweetwater River deposits of Wyoming and the John Day River
(Oligocene) of Oregon, was also referred to Leidy, and added yet more to
the list of newly discovered species with which he had already become
familiar in his earlier researches. The results of this study were published by
the Hayden Survey in 1873, under the title “Contributions to the Extinct
Vertebrate Fauna of the Western Territories.” This was the last of Leidy’s
major works, but he continued up to the time of his death to report to the
Academy concerning the various fossil forms that were submitted to him
for identification. Of such reports the most important was one on the fossils
of the phosphate beds of South Carolina, published in the Journal of the
Academy in 1887.
As a paleontologist, Leidy ranks with Cope and Marsh high among those
who enriched the American literature of the subject, but it must be
remembered that this was but a single aspect of his many-sided scientific
career, for he made many contributions of high order to botany, zoology,
and general and comparative anatomy as well, nor did his knowledge and
usefulness as an instructor of his fellow men keep within the limitations of
these subjects.

Othniel Charles Marsh (1831–1899).

The sixth decade of the nineteenth century saw the beginning of the
labors of several paleontologists who, like Leidy, were destined to raise the
science of fossil vertebrates in America to the level of attainment of the Old
World. They were, among others, Othniel Charles Marsh and Edward
Drinker Cope. Of these the names of Marsh and Cope are linked together
by the brilliance of their attainments, their contemporaneity, and the rivalry
which the similarity of their pursuits unfortunately engendered. Marsh
produced his first paleontological paper in 1862 (33, 278), Cope in 1864,
but the latter died first, so that his life of research was shorter.

To Professor Marsh should be given credit for the first organized
expedition designed exclusively for the collection of vertebrate remains, the
results of which contain so much material that it has not yet entirely seen
the light of scientific exposition. Marsh’s first trip to the West was in 1868,
the first formal expedition being organized two years later. These
expeditions, of which there were four, were privately financed except for
the material and military escort furnished by the United States Government,
and consisted of a personnel drawn entirely from the graduate or
undergraduate body of Yale University. These parties explored Kansas,
Nebraska, Wyoming, Utah, and Oregon, and returned laden with material

from the Cretaceous and Tertiary formations of the West. Some of this is of
necessity somewhat fragmentary, but type after type was secured which,
with his exhaustive knowledge of comparative anatomy, enabled Marsh to
announce discovery after discovery of species, genera, families, and even
orders of mammals, birds, and reptiles which were unknown to science. The
year 1873 saw the last of the student expeditions, and thereafter until the
close of his life the work of collecting was done under Marsh’s supervision,
but by paid explorers, many of whom had been his scouts and guides in the
formal expeditions or had been especially trained by him in the East. In
1882, after fourteen years of the experience thus gained, Marsh was
appointed vertebrate paleontologist to the United States Geological Survey,
which relieved him in part of the personal expense connected with the
collecting, although up to within a short time of his death his own fortune
was very largely spent in enlarging his collections. After his connection
with the Survey was established, Marsh had two main purposes in view in
making the collections: (1) to determine the geological horizon of each
locality where a large series of vertebrate fossils was found, and (2) to
secure from these localities large collections of the more important forms
sufficiently extensive to reveal, if possible, the life histories of each. Marsh
believed that the material thus secured would serve as key or diagnostic
fossils to all horizons of our western geology above the Paleozoic, a belief
in which he was in advance of his time, for few of his contemporaries
appreciated the value of vertebrates as horizon markers. The result of the
fulfilment of his second purpose saw the accumulation of huge collections
from all horizons above the Triassic and some Paleozoic and Triassic as
well. These contained some very remarkable series, each of which Marsh
hoped to make the basis of an elaborate monograph to be published under
the auspices of the Survey. One can visualize the scope of his ambitions by
the fact that no fewer than twenty-seven projected quarto volumes, to
contain at least 850 lithographic plates, were listed by him in 1877. These
covered, among other groups, the toothed birds (Odontornithes),
Dinocerata, horses, brontotheres, pterodactyls, mosasaurs and plesiosaurs,
monkeys, carnivores, perissodactyls and artiodactyls, crocodiles, lizards,
dinosaurs, various birds, proboscideans, edentates and marsupials, brain
evolution, and the Connecticut Valley footprints. Much was done towards
the preparation of these memoirs, as evidenced by the long list of
preliminary papers, admirably illustrated by woodcuts which were to form

the text figures of the memoirs, which appeared with great regularity in the
pages of the Journal for a period of thirty years. Of the actual memoirs,
however, but two had been published at the time of Marsh’s death in 1899
—the Odontornithes in 1880 and the Dinocerata in 1884. One must not
overlook, however, the epoch-making Dinosaurs of North America, which
was published by the Survey in 1896, although it was not in the form nor
had it the scope of the proposed monographs. This was not due to lack of
application, for Professor Marsh was an indefatigable worker, but rather to
the fact that the program was of such magnitude as to necessitate a
patriarchal life span for its consummation. As it is, Professor Marsh’s fame
rests first upon his ability and intrepidity as a collector, ready himself to
brave the very certain hardships and dangers which beset the field
paleontologist in the pioneer days, and also by his judgment and command
of men to secure the very adequate services of others and so to direct their
endeavors that the results were of the highest value. The material witness to
Marsh’s skill as a collector lies in the collections of the Peabody Museum at
Yale and in the Marsh collection at the United States National Museum, the
latter secured through the funds of the United States Geological Survey.
Together they constitute what is possibly the greatest collection of fossil
vertebrates in America, if not in the world; individually, they are second
only to that of the American Museum in New York City, the result of the
combined labors of Osborn and Cope and their very able corps of assistants.
As a scientist Marsh possessed in large measure that wide knowledge of
comparative anatomy so necessary to the vertebrate paleontologist, and as a
consequence was not only able to recognize affinities and classify
unerringly, but also to recognize the salient diagnostic features of the form
before him and in few words so to describe them as to render the
recognition of the species by another worker relatively easy. The
publication of hundreds of these specific diagnoses in the Journal
constitutes a very large and valuable part of that periodical’s contribution to
the advancement of our science. Marsh’s method of indicating forms by so
brief a statement leaves much to be done, however, in the way of further
description of his types, which in many instances were but partially
prepared.
Yet another important service which Marsh rendered to science was the
restoration of the creatures as a whole, made with the most painstaking care
and precision through assembling the drawings of the individual bones.

These restorations have become classic, embracing as they did a score or
more of forms, of beast, bird, and reptile. They also were published first in
the Journal, although they have subsequently been reproduced in text-books
and other works the world over. Part of Marsh’s popular reputation, at least,
which was second to that of no other American in his line, was due to his
skill in attaining publicity, for his papers, of whatever extent, were carefully
and methodically sent to correspondents in the uttermost parts of the earth,
and thus the Marsh collection has reflected the fame of its maker.

Edward Drinker Cope (1840–1897).

The third great name in American vertebrate paleontology, that of
Edward Drinker Cope, stands out in sharp contrast with the other two,
although in the range of his interests he was probably more nearly
comparable with Leidy than with Marsh. The beginning of Cope’s scientific
labors dates from 1859, the year made famous in the annals of science by
the appearance of Darwin’s Origin of Species. It is not surprising, therefore,
that matters evolutional should have interested him to the very end of his
career. Cope was not merely a paleontologist, but was interested in recent
forms, especially the three lower classes of vertebrates, to such an extent
that his work therewith is highly authoritative and in some respects epoch-
making. Thirty-eight years of almost continual toil were his, and the mere
mass of his literary productions is prodigious, especially when one realizes
that, unlike those of a writer of fiction, they were based on painstaking
research and philosophical thought. The greater part of Cope’s life was
spent in or near Philadelphia except for his western explorations, and he is
best known as professor of geology and paleontology in the University of
Pennsylvania, although he served other institutions as well.
Cope’s early work was among the amphibia and reptiles, his first
paleontological paper, the description of Amphibamus grandiceps,
appearing in 1865. This year he also began his studies of the mammals,
especially the Cetacea, both living and extinct, from the Atlantic seaboard.
The next year saw the beginning of his work on the material from the
Cretaceous marls of New Jersey, describing therefrom one of the first
carnivorous dinosaurs, Lælaps, to be discovered in America. In 1868 Cope
began to describe the vertebrates from the Kansas chalk and three years
later made his first exploration of these beds. This led to his connection
with the United States Geological Survey of the Territories under Hayden,
and to continued exploration of Wyoming and Colorado in 1872 and 1873.
The material thus gained, consisting of fishes, mosasaurs, dinosaurs, and
other reptiles, was described in the Transactions of the American
Philosophical Society as well as in the Survey Bulletins. In 1875 these
results were summarized in a large quarto volume entitled “Vertebrata of
the Cretaceous formations of the West.” Subsequent summers were spent in

further exploration of the Bridger, Washakie, and Wasatch formations of
Wyoming, the Puerco and Torrejon of New Mexico, and the Judith River of
Montana. The material gathered in New Mexico proved particularly
valuable, and led to the publication in 1877 of another notable volume
entitled “Report upon the Extinct Vertebrata obtained in New Mexico by
Parties of the Expedition of 1874.”
Material was now accumulating so fast as to necessitate the concentration
of Cope’s own time on research, so that, while he continued to make brief
journeys to the West, the real work of exploration was delegated to Charles
H. Sternberg and J. L. Wortman, both of whom became subsequently very
well known, the former as a collector whose active service has not yet
ceased, the latter as an explorer and later an investigator of extremely high
promise.
As early as 1865, Cope began no fewer than five separate lines of
research which he pursued concurrently for the remainder of his career. On
the fishes, he became a high authority in the larger classification, owing to
his researches into their phylogeny, for which a knowledge of extinct forms
is imperative. On amphibia, he wrote more voluminously than any other
naturalist, discussing not only the morphology but the paleontology and
taxonomy as well. In this connection must be mentioned not only Cope’s
exploration and collections in the Permian of Ohio and Illinois, but
especially the remains from the Texas Permian, first received in 1877, upon
which some of his most brilliant results were based; these of course
included reptilian as well as amphibian material. His third line of research,
the Reptilia, is in part included in the foregoing, but also embraced the
reptiles of the Bridger and other Tertiary deposits, those of the Kansas
Cretaceous, and the Cretaceous dinosaurs.
Up to 1868 Leidy alone was engaged in research in the West, but that
year saw the simultaneous entrance of Marsh and Cope into this new field
of research, and their exploration and descriptions of similar regions and
forms soon led to a rivalry which in turn developed into a most unfortunate
series of controversies, mainly over the subject of priority. This resulted in a
permanent rupture of friendship and the division of American workers into
two opposing camps to the detriment of the progress of our science. This
breach has now been happily healed, and for a number of years the degree