Geological Observations on South America

by Charles Darwin

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 Palaeontological 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. Panopaea, 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 Table 4, 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?

Comparing the fossil remains from the coast of Chile (leaving out, as before, Concepcion and Chiloe) with those from Patagonia, we may conclude, from their generic resemblance, and from the small number of the species which from either coast approach closely to living forms, that the formations of both belong to nearly the same epoch; and this is the opinion of M. D’Orbigny. Had not a single fossil shell been common to the two coasts, it could not have been argued that the formations belonged to different ages; for Messrs. Cuming and Hinds have found, on the comparison of nearly two thousand living species from the opposite sides of South America, only one in common, namely, the Purpura lapillus from both sides of the Isthmus of Panama: even the shells collected by myself amongst the Chonos Islands and on the coast of Patagonia, are dissimilar, and we must descend to the apex of the continent, to Tierra del Fuego, to find these two great conchological provinces united into one. Hence it is remarkable that four or five of the fossil shells from Navidad, namely, Voluta alta, Turritella Patagonica, Trochus collaris, Venus meridionalis, perhaps Natica solida, and perhaps the large oyster from Coquimbo, are considered by Mr. Sowerby as identical with species from Santa Cruz and P. Desire. M. d’Orbigny, however, admits the perfect identity only of the Trochus.

ON THE TEMPERATURE OF THE TERTIARY PERIOD.

As the number of the fossil species and genera from the western and eastern coasts is considerable, it will be interesting to consider the probable nature of the climate under which they lived. We will first take the case of Navidad, in latitude 34 degrees, where thirty-one species were collected, and which, as we shall presently see, must have inhabited shallow water, and therefore will necessarily well exhibit the effects of temperature. Referring to Table 4 we find that the existing species of the genera Cassis, Pyrula, Pleurotoma, Terebra, and Sigaretus, which are generally (though by no means invariably) characteristic of warmer latitudes, do not at the present day range nearly so far south on this line of coast as the fossil species formerly did. Including Coquimbo, we have Perna in the same predicament. The first impression from this fact is, that the climate must formerly have been warmer than it now is; but we must be very cautious in admitting this, for Cardium, Bulla, and Fusus (and, if we include Coquimbo, Anomia and Artemis) likewise formerly ranged farther south than they now do; and as these genera are far from being characteristic of hot climates, their former greater southern range may well have been owing to causes quite distinct from climate: Voluta, again, though generally so tropical a genus, is at present confined on the west coast to colder or more southern latitudes than it was during the tertiary period. The Trochus collaris, moreover, and, as we have just seen according to Mr. Sowerby, two or three other species, formerly ranged from Navidad as far south as Santa Cruz in latitude 50 degrees. If, instead of comparing the fossils of Navidad, as we have hitherto done, with the shells now living on the west coast of South America, we compare them with those found in other parts of the world, under nearly similar latitudes; for instance, in the southern parts of the Mediterranean or of Australia, there is no evidence that the sea off Navidad was formerly hotter than what might have been expected from its latitude, even if it was somewhat warmer than it now is when cooled by the great southern polar current. Several of the most tropical genera have no representative fossils at Navidad; and there are only single species of Cassis, Pyrula, and Sigaretus, two of Pleurotoma and two of Terebra, but none of these species are of conspicuous size. In Patagonia, there is even still less evidence in the character of the fossils, of the climate having been formerly warmer. (It may be worth while to mention that the shells living at the present day on this eastern side of South America, in latitude 40 degrees, have perhaps a more tropical character than those in corresponding latitudes on the shores of Europe: for at Bahia Blanca and S. Blas, there are two fine species of Voluta and four of Oliva.) As from the various reasons already assigned, there can be little doubt that the formations of Patagonia and at least of Navidad and Coquimbo in Chile, are the equivalents of an ancient stage in the tertiary formations of the northern hemisphere, the conclusion that the climate of the southern seas at this period was not hotter than what might have been expected from the latitude of each place, appears to me highly important; for we must believe, in accordance with the views of Mr. Lyell, that the causes which gave to the older tertiary productions of the quite temperate zones of Europe a tropical character, WERE OF A LOCAL CHARACTER AND DID NOT AFFECT THE ENTIRE GLOBE. On the other hand, I have endeavoured to show, in the “Geological Transactions,” that, at a much later period, Europe and North and South America were nearly contemporaneously subjected to ice- action, and consequently to a colder, or at least more equable, climate than that now characteristic of the same latitudes.

ON THE ABSENCE OF EXTENSIVE MODERN CONCHIFEROUS DEPOSITS IN SOUTH AMERICA; AND ON THE CONTEMPORANEOUSNESS OF THE OLDER TERTIARY DEPOSITS AT DISTANT POINTS BEING DUE TO CONTEMPORANEOUS MOVEMENTS OF SUBSIDENCE.

Knowing from the researches of Professor E. Forbes, that molluscous animals chiefly abound within a depth of 100 fathoms and under, and bearing in mind how many thousand miles of both coasts of South America have been upraised within the recent period by a slow, long-continued, intermittent movement,—seeing the diversity in nature of the shores and the number of shells now living on them,—seeing also that the sea off Patagonia and off many parts of Chile, was during the tertiary period highly favourable to the accumulation of sediment,—the absence of extensive deposits including recent shells over these vast spaces of coast is highly remarkable. The conchiferous calcareous beds at Coquimbo, and at a few isolated points northward, offer the most marked exception to this statement; for these beds are from twenty to thirty feet in thickness, and they stretch for some miles along shore, attaining, however, only a very trifling breadth. At Valdivia there is some sandstone with imperfect casts of shells, which POSSIBLY may belong to the recent period: parts of the boulder formation and the shingle-beds on the lower plains of Patagonia probably belong to this same period, but neither are fossiliferous: it also so happens that the great Pampean formation does not include, with the exception of the Azara, any mollusca. There cannot be the smallest doubt that the upraised shells along the shores of the Atlantic and Pacific, whether lying on the bare surface, or embedded in mould or in sand-hillocks, will in the course of ages be destroyed by alluvial action: this probably will be the case even with the calcareous beds of Coquimbo, so liable to dissolution by rain-water. If we take into consideration the probability of oscillations of level and the consequent action of the tidal-waves at different heights, their destruction will appear almost certain. Looking to an epoch as far distant in futurity as we now are from the past Miocene period, there seems to me scarcely a chance, under existing conditions, of the numerous shells now living in those zones of depths most fertile in life, and found exclusively on the western and south-eastern coasts of South America, being preserved to this imaginary distant epoch. A whole conchological series will in time be swept away, with no memorials of their existence preserved in the earth’s crust.

Can any light be thrown on this remarkable absence of recent conchiferous deposits on these coasts, on which, at an ancient tertiary epoch, strata abounding with organic remains were extensively accumulated? I think there can, namely, by considering the conditions necessary for the preservation of a formation to a distant age. Looking to the enormous amount of denudation which on all sides of us has been effected,—as evidenced by the lofty cliffs cutting off on so many coasts horizontal and once far-extended strata of no great antiquity (as in the case of Patagonia),—as evidenced by the level surface of the ground on both sides of great faults and dislocations,—by inland lines of escarpments, by outliers, and numberless other facts, and by that argument of high generality advanced by Mr. Lyell, namely, that every SEDIMENTARY formation, whatever its thickness may be, and over however many hundred square miles it may extend, is the result and the measure of an equal amount of wear and tear of pre-existing formations; considering these facts, we must conclude that, as an ordinary rule, a formation to resist such vast destroying powers, and to last to a distant epoch, must be of wide extent, and either in itself, or together with superincumbent strata, be of great thickness. In this discussion, we are considering only formations containing the remains of marine animals, which, as before mentioned, live, with some exceptions within (most of them much within) depths of 100 fathoms. How, then, can a thick and widely extended formation be accumulated, which shall include such organic remains? First, let us take the case of the bed of the sea long remaining at a stationary level: under these circumstances it is evident that CONCHIFEROUS strata can accumulate only to the same thickness with the depth at which the shells can live; on gently inclined coasts alone can they accumulate to any considerable width; and from the want of superincumbent pressure, it is probable that the sedimentary matter will seldom be much consolidated: such formations have no very good chance, when in the course of time they are upraised, of long resisting the powers of denudation. The chance will be less if the submarine surface, instead of having remained stationary, shall have gone on slowly rising during the deposition of the strata, for in this case their total thickness must be less, and each part, before being consolidated or thickly covered up by superincumbent matter, will have had successively to pass through the ordeal of the beach; and on most coasts, the waves on the beach tend to wear down and disperse every object exposed to their action. Now, both on the south-eastern and western shores of South America, we have had clear proofs that the land has been slowly rising, and in the long lines of lofty cliffs, we have seen that the tendency of the sea is almost everywhere to eat into the land. Considering these facts, it ceases, I think, to be surprising, that extensive recent conchiferous deposits are entirely absent on the southern and western shores of America.

Let us take the one remaining case, of the bed of the sea slowly subsiding during a length of time, whilst sediment has gone on being deposited. It is evident that strata might thus accumulate to any thickness, each stratum being deposited in shallow water, and consequently abounding with those shells which cannot live at great depths: the pressure, also, I may observe, of each fresh bed would aid in consolidating all the lower ones. Even on a rather steep coast, though such must ever be unfavourable to widely extended deposits, the formations would always tend to increase in breadth from the water encroaching on the land. Hence we may admit that periods of slow subsidence will commonly be most favourable to the accumulation of CONCHIFEROUS deposits, of sufficient thickness, extension, and hardness, to resist the average powers of denudation.

We have seen that at an ancient tertiary epoch, fossiliferous deposits were extensively deposited on the coasts of South America; and it is a very interesting fact, that there is evidence that these ancient tertiary beds were deposited during a period of subsidence. Thus, at Navidad, the strata are about eight hundred feet in thickness, and the fossil shells are abundant both at the level of the sea and some way up the cliffs; having sent a list of these fossils to Professor E. Forbes, he thinks they must have lived in water between one and ten fathoms in depth: hence the bottom of the sea on which these shells once lived must have subsided at least 700 feet to allow of the superincumbent matter being deposited. I must here remark, that, as all these and the following fossil shells are extinct species, Professor Forbes necessarily judges of the depths at which they lived only from their generic character, and from the analogical distribution of shells in the northern hemisphere; but there is no just cause from this to doubt the general results. At Huafo the strata are about the same thickness, namely, 800 feet, and Professor Forbes thinks the fossils found there cannot have lived at a greater depth than fifty fathoms, or 300 feet. These two points, namely, Navidad and Huafo, are 570 miles apart, but nearly halfway between them lies Mocha, an island 1,200 feet in height, apparently formed of tertiary strata up to its level summit, and with many shells, including the same Turritella with that found at Huafo, embedded close to the level of the sea. In Patagonia, shells are numerous at Santa Cruz, at the foot of the 350 feet plain, which has certainly been formed by the denudation of the 840 feet plain, and therefore was originally covered by strata that number of feet in thickness, and these shells, according to Professor Forbes, probably lived at a depth of between seven and fifteen fathoms: at Port S. Julian, sixty miles to the north, shells are numerous at the foot of the ninety feet plain (formed by the denudation of the 950 feet plain), and likewise occasionally at the height of several hundred feet in the upper strata; these shells must have lived in water somewhere between five and fifty fathoms in depth. Although in other parts of Patagonia I have no direct evidence of shoal-water shells having been buried under a great thickness of superincumbent submarine strata, yet it should be borne in mind that the lower fossiliferous strata with several of the same species of Mollusca, the upper tufaceous beds, and the high summit-plain, stretch for a considerable distance southward, and for hundreds of miles northward; seeing this uniformity of structure, I conceive it may be fairly concluded that the subsidence by which the shells at Santa Cruz and S. Julian were carried down and covered up, was not confined to these two points, but was co-extensive with a considerable portion of the Patagonian tertiary formation. In a succeeding chapter it will be seen, that we are led to a similar conclusion with respect to the secondary fossiliferous strata of the Cordillera, namely, that they also were deposited during a long- continued and great period of subsidence. From the foregoing reasoning, and from the facts just given, I think we must admit the probability of the following proposition: namely, that when the bed of the sea is either stationary or rising, circumstances are far less favourable, than when the level is sinking, to the accumulation of CONCHIFEROUS deposits of sufficient thickness and extension to resist, when upheaved, the average vast amount of denudation. This result appears to me, in several respects, very interesting: every one is at first inclined to believe that at innumerable points, wherever there is a supply of sediment, fossiliferous strata are now forming, which at some future distant epoch will be upheaved and preserved; but on the views above given, we must conclude that this is far from being the case; on the contrary, we require (1st), a long-continued supply of sediment; (2nd), an extensive shallow area; and (3rd), that this area shall slowly subside to a great depth, so as to admit the accumulation of a widely extended thick mass of superincumbent strata. In how few parts of the world, probably, do these conditions at the present day concur! We can thus, also, understand the general want of that close sequence in fossiliferous formations which we might theoretically have anticipated; for, without we suppose a subsiding movement to go on at the same spot during an enormous period, from one geological era to another, and during the whole of this period sediment to accumulate at the proper rate, so that the depth should not become too great for the continued existence of molluscous animals, it is scarcely possible that there should be a perfect sequence at the same spot in the fossil shells of the two geological formations. (Professor H.D. Rogers, in his excellent address to the Association of American Geologists (“Silliman’s Journal” volume 47 page 277) makes the following remark: “I question if we are at all aware how COMPLETELY the whole history of all departed time lies indelibly recorded with the amplest minuteness of detail in the successive sediments of the globe, how effectually, in other words, every period of time HAS WRITTEN ITS OWN HISTORY, carefully preserving every created form and every trace of action.” I think the correctness of such remarks is more than doubtful, even if we except (as I suppose he would) all those numerous organic forms which contain no hard parts.) So far from a very long-continued subsidence being probable, many facts lead to the belief that the earth’s surface oscillates up and down; and we have seen that during the elevatory movements there is but a small chance of DURABLE fossiliferous deposits accumulating.