A Manual of Elementary Geology / or, The Ancient Changes of the Earth and its Inhabitants as Illustrated by Geological Monuments

by Sir Charles Lyell

The name of tertiary has been given to them, because they are all posterior in date to the rocks termed "secondary," of which the chalk constitutes the newest group. These tertiary strata were at first confounded, as before stated, [p. 91.], with the superficial alluviums of Europe; and it was long before their real extent and thickness, and the various ages to which they belong, were fully recognized. They were observed to occur in patches, some of freshwater, others of marine origin, their geographical area being usually small as compared to the secondary formations, and their position often suggesting the idea of their having been deposited in different bays, lakes, estuaries, or inland seas, after a large portion of the space now occupied by Europe had already been converted into dry land.

The first deposits of this class, of which the characters were accurately determined, were those occurring in the neighbourhood of Paris, described in 1810 by MM. Cuvier and Brongniart. They were ascertained to consist of successive sets of strata, some of marine, others of freshwater origin, lying one upon the other. The fossil shells and corals were perceived to be almost all of unknown species, and to have in general a near affinity to those now inhabiting warmer seas. The bones and skeletons of land animals, some of them of large size, and belonging to more than forty distinct species, were examined by Cuvier, and declared by him not to agree specifically and for the most part not even generically, with any hitherto observed in the living creation.

Strata were soon afterwards brought to light in the vicinity of London, and in Hampshire, which, although dissimilar in mineral composition, were justly inferred by Mr. T. Webster to be of the same age as those of Paris, because the greater number of the fossil shells were specifically identical. For the same reason rocks found on the Gironde, in the South of France, and at certain points in the North of Italy, were suspected to be of contemporaneous origin.

A variety of deposits were afterwards found in other parts of Europe, all reposing immediately on rocks as old or older than the chalk, and which exhibited certain general characters of resemblance in their organic remains to those previously observed near Paris and London. An attempt was therefore made at first to refer the whole to one period; and when at length this seemed impracticable, it was contended that as in the Parisian series there were many subordinate formations of considerable thickness which must have accumulated one after the other, during a great lapse of time, so the various patches of tertiary strata scattered over Europe might correspond in age, some of them to the older, and others to the newer, subdivisions of the Parisian series.

This error, although most unavoidable on the part of those who made the first generalizations in this branch of geology, retarded seriously for some years the progress of classification. A more scrupulous attention to specific distinctions, aided by a careful regard to the relative position of the strata containing them, led at length to the conviction that there were formations both marine and freshwater of various ages, and all newer than the strata of the neighbourhood of Paris and London.

One of the first steps in this chronological reform was made in 1811, by an English naturalist, Mr. Parkinson, who pointed out the fact that certain shelly strata, provincially termed "Crag" in Suffolk, lay decidedly over a deposit which was the continuation of the blue clay of London. At the same time he remarked that the fossil testacea in these newer beds were distinct from those of the blue clay, and that while some of them were of unknown species, others were identical with species now inhabiting the British seas.

Another important discovery was soon afterwards made by Brocchi in Italy, who investigated the argillaceous and sandy deposits replete with shells which form a low range of hills, flanking the Apennines on both sides, from the plains of the Po to Calabria. These lower hills were called by him the Subapennines, and were formed of strata of different ages, all newer than those of Paris and London.

Another tertiary group occurring in the neighbourhood of Bordeaux and Dax, in the south of France, was examined by M. de Basterot in 1825, who described and figured several hundred species of shells, which differed for the most part both from the Parisian series and those of the Subapennine hills. It was soon, therefore, suspected that this fauna might belong to a period intermediate between that of the Parisian and Subapennine strata, and it was not long before the evidence of superposition was brought to bear in support of this opinion; for other strata, contemporaneous with those of Bordeaux, were observed in one district (the Valley of the Loire), to overlie the Parisian formation, and in another (in Piedmont) to underlie the Subapennine beds. The first example of these was pointed out in 1829 by M. Desnoyers, who ascertained that the sand and marl of marine origin called Faluns, near Tours, in the basin of the Loire, full of sea-shells and corals, rested upon a lacustrine formation, which constitutes the uppermost subdivision of the Parisian group, extending continuously throughout a great table-land intervening between the basin of the Seine and that of the Loire. The other example occurs in Italy, where strata, containing many fossils similar to those of Bordeaux, were observed by Bonelli and others in the environs of Turin, subjacent to strata belonging to the Subapennine group of Brocchi.

Without pretending to give a complete sketch of the progress of discovery, I may refer to the facts above enumerated, as illustrating the course usually pursued by geologists when they attempt to found new chronological divisions. The method bears some analogy to that pursued by the naturalist in the construction of genera, when he selects a typical species, and then classes as congeners all other species of animals and plants which agree with this standard within certain limits. The genera A. and C. having been founded on these principles, a new species is afterwards met with, departing widely both from A. and C., but in many respects of an intermediate character. For this new type it becomes necessary to institute the new genus B., in which are included all species afterwards brought to light, which agree more nearly with B. than with the types of A. or C. In like manner a new formation is met with in geology, and the characters of its fossil fauna and flora investigated. From that moment it is considered as a record of a certain period of the earth's history, and a standard to which other deposits may be compared. If any are found containing the same or nearly the same organic remains, and occupying the same relative position, they are regarded in the light of contemporary annals. All such monuments are said to relate to one period, during which certain events occurred, such as the formation of particular rocks by aqueous or volcanic agency, or the continued existence and fossilization of certain tribes of animals and plants. When several of these periods have had their true places assigned to them in a chronological series, others are discovered which it becomes necessary to intercalate between those first known; and the difficulty of assigning clear lines of separation must unavoidably increase in proportion as chasms in the past history of the globe are filled up.

Every zoologist and botanist is aware that it is a comparatively easy task to establish genera in departments which have been enriched with only a small number of species, and where there is as yet no tendency in one set of characters to pass almost insensibly, by a multitude of connecting links, into another. They also know that the difficulty of classification augments, and that the artificial nature of their divisions becomes more apparent, in proportion to the increased number of objects brought to light. But in separating families and genera, they have no other alternative than to avail themselves of such breaks as still remain, or of every hiatus in the chain of animated beings which is not yet filled up. So in geology, we may be eventually compelled to resort to sections of time as arbitrary, and as purely conventional, as those which divide the history of human events into centuries. But in the present state of our knowledge, it is more convenient to use the interruptions which still occur in the regular sequence of geological monuments, as boundary lines between our principal groups or periods, even though the groups thus established are of very unequal value.