How to Estimate the Thickness of the Sedimentary Rocks.—The sedimentary rocks of which the earth's crust is mainly composed consist, according to Sir Charles Lyell's classification, of fourteen great formations, of which the most ancient is the Laurentian, and the most recent the Post-Tertiary or Pleistocene; with thirty important subdivisions, each of which again consists of a more or less considerable number of distinct beds or strata. Thus, the Silurian formation is divided into Upper and Lower Silurian, each characterized by a distinct set of fossil remains, and the Upper Silurian again consists of a large number of separate beds, such as the Wenlock Limestone, the Upper Llandovery Sandstone the Lower Llandovery Slates, &c., each usually characterised by a difference of mineral composition or mechanical structure, as well as by some peculiar fossils. These beds and formations vary greatly in extent, both above and beneath the surface, and are also of very various thicknesses in different localities. A thick bed or series of beds often thins out in a given direction, and sometimes disappears altogether, so that two beds which were respectively above and beneath it may come into contact. As an example of this thinning out, American geologists adduce the Palæozoic formations of the Appalachian Mountains, which have a total thickness of 42,000 feet, but as they are traced westward thin out till they become only 4,000 feet in total thickness. In like manner the Carboniferous grits and shales are 18,000 feet thick in Yorkshire and Lancashire, but they thin out southwards, so that in Leicestershire they are only 3,000 feet thick; and similar phenomena occur in all strata and in every part of the world. It must be observed that this thinning out has nothing to do with denudation (which acts upon the surface of a country so as to produce great irregularities of contour), but is a regular attenuation of the layers of rock, due to a deficiency of sediment in certain directions at the original formation of the deposit. Owing to this thinning out of stratified rocks, they are on the whole of far less extent than is usually supposed. When we see a geological map showing successive formations following each other in long irregular belts across the country (as is well
seen in the case of the Secondary rocks of England), and a corresponding section showing each bed dipping beneath its predecessor, we are apt to imagine that beneath the uppermost bed we should find all the others following in succession like the coats of an onion. But this is far from being the case, and a remarkable proof of the narrow limitation of these formations has been recently obtained by a boring at Ware through the Chalk and Gault Clay, which latter immediately rests on the Upper Silurian Wenlock Limestone full of characteristic fossils, at a depth of only 800 feet. Here we have an enormous gap, showing that none of earlier Secondary or late Palæozoic formations extend to this part of England, unless indeed they had been all once elevated and entirely swept away by denudation.[[89]]
But if we consider how such deposits are now forming, we shall find that the thinning out of the beds of each formation, and their restriction to irregular bands and patches, is exactly what we should expect. The enormous quantity of sediment continually poured into the sea by rivers, gradually subsides to the bottom as soon as the motion of the water is checked. All the heavier material must be deposited near the shore or in those areas over which it is first spread by the tides or currents of the ocean; while only the very fine mud and clay is carried out to considerable distances. Thus all stratified deposits
will form most quickly near the shores, and will thin out rapidly at greater distances, little or none being formed in the depths of the great oceans. This important fact was demonstrated by the specimens of sea-bottom examined during the voyage of the Challenger, all the "shore deposits" being usually confined within a distance of 100 or 150 miles from the coast; while the "deep-sea deposits" are either purely organic, being formed of the calcareous or siliceous skeletons of globigerinæ, radiolarians, and diatomaceæ, or are clays formed of undissolved portions of these, together with the disintegrated or dissolved materials of pumice and volcanic dust, which being very light are carried by wind or by water over the widest oceans.
From the preceding considerations we shall be better able to appreciate the calculations as to the thickness of stratified deposits made by geologists. Professor Ramsay has calculated that the sedimentary rocks of Britain alone have a total maximum thickness of 72,600 feet; while Professor Haughton, from a survey of the whole world, estimates the maximum thickness of the known stratified rocks at 177,200 feet. Now these maximum thicknesses of each deposit will have been produced only where the conditions were exceptionally favourable, either in deep water near the mouths of great rivers, or in inland seas, or in places to which the drainage of extensive countries was conveyed by ocean currents; and this great thickness will necessarily be accompanied by a corresponding thinness, or complete absence of deposit, elsewhere. How far the series of rocks found in any extensive area, as Europe or North America, represents the whole series of deposits which have been made there we cannot tell; but there is no reason to think that it is a very inadequate representation of their maximum thickness, though it undoubtedly is of their extent and bulk. When we see in how many distinct localities patches of the same formation occur, it seems improbable that the whole of the deposits formed during any one period should have been destroyed, even in such an area as Europe, while it is still more improbable that they should be so destroyed over the whole world; and
if any considerable portion of them is left, that portion may give a fair idea of their average, or even of their maximum, thickness. In his admirable paper on "The Mean Thickness of the Sedimentary Rocks,"[[90]] Dr. James Croll has dwelt on the extent of denudation in diminishing the mean thickness of the rocks that have been formed, remarking, "Whatever the present mean thickness of all the sedimentary rocks of our globe may be, it must be small in comparison to the mean thickness of all the sedimentary rocks which have been formed. This is obvious from the fact that the sedimentary rocks of one age are partly formed from the destruction of the sedimentary rocks of former ages. From the Laurentian age down to the present day the stratified rocks have been undergoing constant denudation." This is perfectly true, and yet the mean thickness of that portion of the sedimentary rocks which remains may not be very different from that of the entire mass, because denudation acts only on those rocks which are exposed on the surface of a country, and most largely on those that are upheaved; while, except in the rare case of an extensive formation being quite horizontal, and wholly exposed to the sea or to the atmosphere, denudation can have no tendency to diminish the thickness of any entire deposit.[[91]] Unless, therefore, a formation is completely destroyed by denudation in every part of the world (a thing very improbable), we may have in existing rocks a not very inadequate representation of the mean thickness of all that have been formed, and even of the maximum thickness of the larger portion. This will be the more likely because it is almost certain that many rocks contemporaneously formed are counted by geologists as distinct formations, whenever they differ in lithological character or in organic remains. But we know that limestones, sandstones, and shales, are always forming at the same time;
while a great difference in organic remains may arise from comparatively slight changes of geographical features, or from difference in the depth or purity of the water in which the animals lived.[[92]]
How to Estimate the Average Rate of Deposition of the Sedimentary Rocks.—But if we take the estimate of Professor Haughton (177,200 feet), which, as we have seen, is probably excessive, for the maximum thickness of the sedimentary rocks of the globe of all known geological ages, can we arrive at any estimate of the rate at which they were formed? Dr. Croll has attempted to make such an estimate, but he has taken for his basis the mean thickness of the rocks, which we have no means whatever of arriving at, and which he guesses, allowing for denudation, to be equal to the maximum thickness as measured by geologists. The land-area of the globe is, according to Dr. Croll, 57,000,000[[93]] square miles, and he gives the coast-line as 116,000 miles. This, however, is, for our purpose, rather too much, as it allows for bays, inlets, and the smaller islands. An approximate measurement on a globe shows that 100,000 miles will be nearer the mark, and this has the advantage of being an easily remembered even number. The distance from the coast, to which shore-deposits usually extend, may be reckoned at about 100 or 150 miles, but by far the larger portion of the matter brought down from the land will be deposited comparatively close to the shore; that is, within twenty or thirty miles. If we suppose the portion deposited beyond thirty miles to be added to the deposits within that distance, and the whole reduced to a uniform thickness in a direction at right angles to the coast, we should probably include all areas where deposits of the maximum thickness
are forming at the present time, along with a large but unknown proportion of surface where the deposits were far below the maximum thickness. This follows, if we consider that deposit must go on very unequally along different parts of a coast, owing to the distance from each other of the mouths of great rivers and the limitations of ocean currents; and because, compared with the areas over which a thick deposit is forming annually, those where there is little or none are probably at least twice as extensive. If, therefore, we take a width of thirty miles along the whole coast-line of the globe as representing the area over which deposits are forming, corresponding to the maximum thickness as measured by geologists, we shall certainly over rather than under-estimate the possible rate of deposit.[[94]]
Now a coast line of 100,000 miles with a width of 30 gives an area of 3,000,000 square miles, on which the denuded matter of the whole land-area of 57,000,000 square