Of these twenty-four shells, all are extinct, except, according to Mr. Sowerby, the Artemis ponderosa, Mytilus Chiloensis, and probably the great Balanus.
Coquimbo to Copiapo.—A few miles north of Coquimbo, I met with the ferruginous, balaniferous mass (E) with many silicified bones; I was informed that these silicified bones occur also at Tonguay, south of Coquimbo: their number is certainly remarkable, and they seem to take the place of the silicified wood, so common on the coast-formations of Southern Chile. In the valley of Chañeral, I again saw this same formation, capped with the recent calcareous beds. I here left the coast, and did not see any more of the tertiary formations, until descending to the sea at Copiapo: here in one place I found variously coloured layers of sand and soft sandstone, with seams of gypsum, and in another place, a comminuted shelly mass, with layers of rotten-stone and seams of gypsum, including many of the extinct gigantic oyster: beds with these oysters are said to occur at English Harbour, a few miles north of Copiapo.
Coast of Peru.—With the exception of deposits containing recent shells and of quite insignificant dimensions, no tertiary formations have been observed on this coast, for a space of twenty-two degrees of latitude north of Copiapo, until coming to Payta, where there is said to be a considerable calcareous deposit: a few fossils have been described by M. d’Orbigny from this place, namely:—
- Rostellaria Gaudichaudi, d’Orbigny, “Voyage” Pal.
- Pectunculus Paytensis, d’Orbigny, “Voyage” Pal.
- Venus petitiana, d’Orbigny, “Voyage” Pal.
- Ostrea Patagonica? This great oyster (of which specimens have been given me) cannot be distinguished by Mr. Sowerby from some of the varieties from Patagonia; though it would be hazardous to assert it is the same with that species, or with that from Coquimbo.
Concluding Remarks.—The formations described in this chapter, have, in the case of Chiloe and probably in that of Concepcion and Navidad, apparently been accumulated in troughs formed by submarine ridges extending parallel to the ancient shores of the continent; in the case of the islands of Mocha and Huafo it is highly probable, and in that of Ypun and Lemus almost certain, that they were accumulated round isolated rocky centres or nuclei, in the same manner as mud and sand are now collecting round the outlying islets and reefs in the West Indian Archipelago. Hence, I may remark, it does not follow that the outlying tertiary masses of Mocha and Huafo were ever continuously united at the same level with the formations on the mainland, though they may have been of contemporaneous origin, and been subsequently upraised to the same height. In the more northern parts of Chile, the tertiary strata seem to have been separately accumulated in bays, now forming the mouths of valleys.
The relation between these several deposits on the shores of the Pacific, is not nearly so clear as in the case of the tertiary formations on the Atlantic. Judging from the form and height of the land (evidence which I feel sure is here much more trustworthy than it can ever be in such broken continents as that of Europe), from the identity of mineralogical composition, from the presence of fragments of lignite and of silicified wood, and from the intercalated layers of imperfect coal, I must believe that the coast-formations from Central Chiloe to Concepcion, a distance of 400 miles, are of the same age: from nearly similar reasons, I suspect that the beds of Mocha, Huafo, and Ypun, belong also to the same period. The commonest shell in Mocha and Huafo is the same species of Turritella; and I believe the same Cytheræa is found on the islands of Huafo, Chiloe, and Ypun; but with these trifling exceptions, the few organic remains found at these places are distinct. The numerous shells from Navidad, with the exception of two, namely, the Sigaretus and Turritella found at Ypun, are likewise distinct from those found in any other part of this coast. Coquimbo has Cardium auca in common with Concepcion, and Fusus Cleryanus with Huafo; I may add, that Coquimbo has Venus petitiana, and a gigantic oyster (said by M. d’Orbigny also to be found a little south of Concepcion) in common with Payta, though this latter place is situated twenty-two degrees northward of lat. 27°, to which point the Coquimbo formation extends.
From these facts, and from the generic resemblance of the fossils from the different localities, I cannot avoid the suspicion that they all belong to nearly the same epoch, which epoch, as we shall immediately see, must be a very ancient tertiary one. But as the Baculite, especially considering its apparent identity with the Cretaceous Pondicherry species, and the presence of an Ammonite, and the resemblance of the Nautilus to two upper greensand species, together afford very strong evidence that the formation of Concepcion is a Secondary one; I will, in my remarks on the fossils from the other localities, put on one side those from Concepcion and from Eastern Chiloe, which, whatever their age may be, appear to me to belong to one group. I must, however, again call attention to the fact that the Cardium auca is found both at Concepcion and in the undoubtedly tertiary strata of Coquimbo: nor should the possibility be overlooked, that as Trigonia, though known in the northern hemisphere only as a Secondary genus, has living representatives in the Australian seas, so a Baculite, Ammonite, and Trigonia may have survived in this remote part of the southern ocean to a somewhat later period than to the north of the equator.
Before passing in review the fossils from the other localities, there are two points, with respect to the formations between Concepcion and Chiloe, which deserve some notice. First, that though the strata are generally horizontal, they have been upheaved in Chiloe in a set of parallel anticlinal and uniclinal lines ranging north and south,—in the district near P. Rumena by eight or nine far-extended, most symmetrical, uniclinal lines ranging nearly east and west,—and in the neighbourhood of Concepcion by less regular single lines, directed both N.E. and S.W., and N.W. and S.E. This fact is of some interest, as showing that within a period which cannot be considered as very ancient in relation to the history of the continent, the strata between the Cordillera and the Pacific have been broken up in the same variously directed manner as have the old plutonic and metamorphic rocks in this same district. The second point is, that the sandstone between Concepcion and Southern Chiloe is everywhere lignitiferous, and includes much silicified wood; whereas the formations in Northern Chile do not include beds of lignite or coal, and in place of the fragments of silicified wood there are silicified bones. Now, at the present day, from Cape Horn to near Concepcion, the land is entirely concealed by forests, which thin out at Concepcion, and in Central and Northern Chile entirely disappear. This coincidence in the distribution of the fossil wood and the living forests may be quite accidental; but I incline to take a different view of it; for, as the difference in climate, on which the presence of forests depends, is here obviously in chief part due to the form of the land, and as the Cordillera undoubtedly existed when the lignitiferous beds were accumulating, I conceive it is not improbable that the climate, during the lignitiferous period, varied on different parts of the coast in a somewhat similar manner as it now does. Looking to an earlier epoch, when the strata of the Cordillera were depositing, there were islands which even in the latitude of Northern Chile, where now all is irreclaimably desert, supported large coniferous forests.
Seventy-nine species of fossil shells, in a tolerably recognisable condition, from the coast of Chile and Peru, are described in this volume, and in the Palæontological part of M. d’Orbigny’s “Voyage”: if we put on one side the twenty species exclusively found at Concepcion and Chiloe, fifty-nine species from Navidad and the other specified localities remain. Of these fifty-nine species only an Artemis, a Mytilus and Balanus, all from Coquimbo, are (in the opinion of Mr. Sowerby, but not in that of M. d’Orbigny) identical with living shells; and it would certainly require a better series of specimens to render this conclusion certain. Only the Turritella Chilensis from Huafo and Mocha, the T. Patagonica and Venus meridionalis from Navidad, come very near to recent South American shells, namely, the two Turritellas to T. cingulata, and the Venus to V. exalbida: some few other species come rather less near; and some few resemble forms in the older European tertiary deposits: none of the species resemble secondary forms. Hence I conceive there can be no doubt that these formations are tertiary,—a point necessary to consider, after the case of Concepcion. The fifty-nine species belong to thirty-two genera; of these, Gastridium is extinct, and three or four of the genera (viz. Panopæa, Rostellaria, Corbis (?), and I believe Solecurtus) are not now found on the west coast of South America. Fifteen of the genera have on this coast living representatives in about the same latitudes with the fossil species; but twelve genera now range very differently to what they formerly did. The idea of the table on the following page, in which the difference between the extension in latitude of the fossil and existing species is shown, is taken from M. d’Orbigny’s work; but the range of the living shells is given on the authority of Mr. Cuming, whose long-continued researches on the conchology of South America are well-known.
When we consider that very few, if any, of the fifty-nine fossil shells are identical with, or make any close approach to, living species; when we consider that some of the genera do not now exist on the west coast of South America, and that no less than twelve genera out of the thirty-two formerly ranged very differently from the existing species of the same genera, we must admit that these deposits are of considerable antiquity, and that they probably verge on the commencement of the tertiary era. May we not venture to believe, that they are of nearly contemporaneous origin with the Eocene formations of the northern hemisphere?