I am astonished and grieved over D'Orbigny's nonsense of sudden elevations. (481/1. D'Orbigny's views are referred to by Lyell in chapter vii. of the "Principles," Volume I. page 131. "This mud {i.e. the Pampean mud} contains in it recent species of shells, some of them proper to brackish water, and is believed by Mr. Darwin to be an estuary or delta deposit. M.A. D'Orbigny, however, has advanced an hypothesis...that the agitation and displacement of the waters of the ocean, caused by the elevation of the Andes, gave rise to a deluge, of which this Pampean mud, which reaches sometimes the height of 12,000 feet, is the result and monument.") I must give you one of his cases: He finds an old beach 600 feet above sea. He finds STILL ATTACHED to the rocks at 300 feet six species of truly littoral shells. He finds at 20 to 30 feet above sea an immense accumulation of chiefly littoral shells. He argues the whole 600 feet uplifted at one blow, because the attached shells at 300 feet have not been displaced. Therefore when the sea formed a beach at 600 feet the present littoral shells were attached to rocks at 300 feet depth, and these same shells were accumulating by thousands at 600 feet.
Hear this, oh Forbes. Is it not monstrous for a professed conchologist? This is a fair specimen of his reasoning.
One of his arguments against the Pampas being a slow deposit, is that mammifers are very seldom washed by rivers into the sea!
Because at 12,000 feet he finds the same kind of clay with that of the Pampas he never doubts that it is contemporaneous with the Pampas {debacle?} which accompanied the right royal salute of every volcano in the Cordillera. What a pity these Frenchmen do not catch hold of a comet, and return to the good old geological dramas of Burnett and Whiston. I shall keep out of controversy, and just give my own facts. It is enough to disgust one with Geology; though I have been much pleased with the frank, decided, though courteous manner with which D'Orbigny disputes my conclusions, given, unfortunately, without facts, and sometimes rashly, in my journal.
Enough of S. America. I wish you would ask Mr. Horner (for I forgot to do so, and am unwilling to trouble him again) whether he thinks there is too much detail (quite independent of the merits of the book) in my volcanic volume; as to know this would be of some real use to me. You could tell me when we meet after York, when I will come to town. I had intended being at York, but my courage has failed. I should much like to hear your lecture, but still more to read it, as I think reading is always better than hearing.
I am very glad you talk of a visit to us in the autumn if you can spare the time. I shall be truly glad to see Mrs. Lyell and yourself here; but I have scruples in asking any one—you know how dull we are here. Young Hooker (481/2. Sir J.D. Hooker.) talks of coming; I wish he might meet you,—he appears to me a most engaging young man.
I have been delighted with Prescott, of which I have read Volume I. at your recommendation; I have just been a good deal interested with W. Taylor's (of Norwich) "Life and Correspondence."
On your return from York I shall expect a great supply of Geological gossip.
LETTER 482. TO C. LYELL. {October 3rd, 1846.}
I have been much interested with Ramsay, but have no particular suggestions to offer (482/1. "On the Denudation of South Wales and the Adjacent Counties of England." A.C. Ramsay, "Mem. Geol. Survey Great Britain," Volume I., London, 1846.); I agree with all your remarks made the other day. My final impression is that the only argument against him is to tell him to read and re-read the "Principles," and if not then convinced to send him to Pluto. Not but what he has well read the "Principles!" and largely profited thereby. I know not how carefully you have read this paper, but I think you did not mention to me that he does (page 327) (482/2. Ramsay refers the great outlines of the country to the action of the sea in Tertiary times. In speaking of the denudation of the coast, he says: "Taking UNLIMITED time into account, we can conceive that any extent of land might be so destroyed...If to this be added an EXCEEDINGLY SLOW DEPRESSION of the land and sea bottom, the wasting process would be materially assisted by this depression" (loc. cit., page 327).) believe that the main part of his great denudation was effected during a vast (almost gratuitously assumed) slow Tertiary subsidence and subsequent Tertiary oscillating slow elevation. So our high cliff argument is inapplicable. He seems to think his great subsidence only FAVOURABLE for great denudation. I believe from the general nature of the off-shore sea's bottoms that it is almost necessary; do look at two pages—page 25 of my S. American volume—on this subject. (482/3. "Geological Observations on S. America," 1846, page 25. "When viewing the sea-worn cliffs of Patagonia, in some parts between 800 and 900 feet in height, and formed of horizontal Tertiary strata, which must once have extended far seaward...a difficulty often occurred to me, namely, how the strata could possibly have been removed by the action of the sea at a considerable depth beneath its surface." The cliffs of St. Helena are referred to in illustration of the same problem; speaking of these, Darwin adds: "Now, if we had any reason to suppose that St. Helena had, during a long period, gone on slowly subsiding, every difficulty would be removed...I am much inclined to suspect that we shall hereafter find in all such cases that the land with the adjoining bed of the sea has in truth subsided..." (loc. cit., pages 25-6).)