[26] Beechey’s “Voyage to the Pacific,” chapter vii. and viii.
After these considerations, I attach little importance, as indicating the ordinary and still less the possible rate of outward growth of coral-reefs, to the fact that certain reefs in the Red Sea have not increased during a long interval of time; or to other such cases, as that of Ouluthy atoll in the Caroline group, where every islet, described a thousand years before by Cantova was found in the same state by Lutké,[[27]]—without it could be shown that, in these cases, the conditions were favourable to the vigorous and unopposed growth of the corals living in the different zones of depth, and that a proper basis for the extent of the reef was present. The former conditions must depend on many contingencies, and in the deep oceans where coral formations most abound, a basis within the requisite depth can rarely be present.
[27] F. Lutké’s “Voyage autour du Monde.” In the group Elato, however, it appears that what is now the islet Falipi, is called in Cantova’s Chart, the Banc de Falipi. It is not stated whether this has been caused by the growth of coral, or by the accumulation of sand.
Nor do I attach any importance to the fact of certain submerged reefs, as those off Tahiti, or those within Diego Garcia not now being nearer the surface than they were many years ago, as an indication of the rate under favourable circumstances of the upward growth of reefs; after it has been shown, that all the reefs have grown to the surface in some of the Chagos atolls, but that in neighbouring atolls which appear to be of equal antiquity and to be exposed to the same external conditions, every reef remains submerged; for we are almost driven to attribute this to a difference, not in the rate of growth, but in the habits of the corals in the two cases.
In an old-standing reef, the corals, which are so different in kind on different parts of it, are probably all adapted to the stations they occupy, and hold their places, like other organic beings, by a struggle one with another, and with external nature; hence we may infer that their growth would generally be slow, except under peculiarly favourable circumstances. Almost the only natural condition, allowing a quick upward growth of the whole surface of a reef, would be a slow subsidence of the area in which it stood; if, for instance, Keeling atoll were to subside two or three feet, can we doubt that the projecting margin of live coral, about half an inch in thickness, which surrounds the dead upper surfaces of the mounds of Porites, would in this case form a concentric layer over them, and the reef thus increase upwards, instead of, as at present, outwards? The Nulliporæ are now encroaching on the Porites and Millepora, but in this case might we not confidently expect that the latter would, in their turn, encroach on the Nulliporæ? After a subsidence of this kind, the sea would gain on the islets, and the great fields of dead but upright corals in the lagoon, would be covered by a sheet of clear water; and might we not then expect that these reefs would rise to the surface, as they anciently did when the lagoon was less confined by islets, and as they did within a period of ten years in the schooner-channel, cut by the inhabitants? In one of the Maldiva atolls, a reef, which within a very few years existed as an islet bearing cocoa-nut trees, was found by Lieutenant Prentice “entirely covered with live coral and Madrepore.” The natives believe that the islet was washed away by a change in the currents, but if, instead of this, it had quietly subsided, surely every part of the island which offered a solid foundation, would in a like manner have become coated with living coral.
Through steps such as these, any thickness of rock, composed of a singular intermixture of various kinds of corals, shells, and calcareous sediment, might be formed; but without subsidence, the thickness would necessarily be determined by the depth at which the reef-building polypifers can exist. If it be asked, at what rate in years I suppose a reef of coral favourably circumstanced could grow up from a given depth; I should answer, that we have no precise evidence on this point, and comparatively little concern with it. We see, in innumerable points over wide areas, that the rate has been sufficient, either to bring up the reefs from various depths to the surface, or, as is more probable, to keep them at the surface, during progressive subsidences; and this is a much more important standard of comparison than any cycle of years.
It may, however, be inferred from the following facts, that the rate in years under favourable circumstances would be very far from slow. Dr. Allan, of Forres, has, in his MS. Thesis deposited in the library of the Edinburgh University (extracts from which I owe to the kindness of Dr. Malcolmson), the following account of some experiments, which he tried during his travels in the years 1830 to 1832 on the east coast of Madagascar. “To ascertain the rise and progress of the coral-family, and fix the number of species met with at Foul Point (latitude 17° 40′) twenty species of coral were taken off the reef and planted apart on a sand-bank three feet deep at low water. Each portion weighed ten pounds, and was kept in its place by stakes. Similar quantities were placed in a clump and secured as the rest. This was done in December 1830. In July following, each detached mass was nearly level with the sea at low water, quite immovable, and several feet long, stretching as the parent reef, with the coast current from north to south. The masses accumulated in a clump were found equally increased, but some of the species in such unequal ratios, as to be growing over each other.” The loss of Dr. Allan’s magnificent collection by shipwreck, unfortunately prevents its being known to what genera these corals belonged; but from the numbers experimented on, it is certain that all the more conspicuous kinds must have been included. Dr. Allan informs me, in a letter, that he believes it was a Madrepora, which grew most vigorously. One may be permitted to suspect that the level of the sea might possibly have been somewhat different at the two stated periods; nevertheless, it is quite evident that the growth of the ten-pound masses, during the six or seven months, at the end of which they were found immovably fixed[[28]] and several feet in length, must have been very great. The fact of the different kinds of coral, when placed in one clump, having increased in extremely unequal ratios, is very interesting, as it shows the manner in which a reef, supporting many species of coral, would probably be affected by a change in the external conditions favouring one kind more than another. The growth of the masses of coral in N. and S. lines parallel to the prevailing currents, whether due to the drifting of sediment or to the simple movement of the water, is, also, a very interesting circumstance.
[28] It is stated by De la Beche (“Geological Manual,” page 143), on the authority of Mr. Lloyd, who surveyed the Isthmus of Panama, that some specimens of Polypifers, placed by him in a sheltered pool of water, were found in the course of a few days firmly fixed by the secretion of a stony matter, to the bottom.
A fact, communicated to me by Lieutenant Wellstead, I.N., in some degree corroborates the result of Dr. Allan’s experiments: it is, that in the Persian Gulf a ship had her copper bottom encrusted in the course of twenty months with a layer of coral, two feet in thickness, which it required great force to remove, when the vessel was docked: it was not ascertained to what order this coral belonged. The case of the schooner-channel choked up with coral in an interval of less than ten years, in the lagoon of Keeling atoll, should be here borne in mind. We may also infer, from the trouble which the inhabitants of the Maldiva atolls take to root out, as they express it, the coral-knolls from their harbours, that their growth can hardly be very slow.[[29]]
[29] Mr. Stutchbury (“West of England Journal”, No. I., page 50.) has described a specimen of Agaricia, “weighing 2 lbs. 9 oz., which surrounds a species of oyster, whose age could not be more than two years, and yet is completely enveloped by this dense coral.” I presume that the oyster was living when the specimen was procured; otherwise the fact tells nothing. Mr. Stutchbury also mentions an anchor, which had become entirely encrusted with coral in fifty years; other cases, however, are recorded of anchors which have long remained amidst coral-reefs without having become coated. The anchor of the Beagle, in 1832, after having been down exactly one month at Rio de Janeiro, was so thickly coated by two species of Tubularia, that large spaces of the iron were entirely concealed; the tufts of this horny zoophyte were between two and three inches in length. It has been attempted to compute, but I believe erroneously, the rate of growth of a reef, from the fact mentioned by Captain Beechey, of the Chama gigas being embedded in coral-rock. But it should be remembered, that some species of this genus invariably live, both whilst young and old, in cavities, which the animal has the power of enlarging with its growth. I saw many of these shells thus embedded in the outer “flat” of Keeling atoll, which is composed of dead rock; and therefore the cavities in this case had no relation whatever with the growth of coral. M. Lesson, also, speaking of this shell (Partie Zoolog. “Voyage de la ‘Coquille’”), has remarked, “que constamment ses valves étaient engagés complètement dans la masse des Madrepores.”