Part 12

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.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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.