I LOOKED forward with great interest to the conclusion of Messrs. Murray and Renard's “Origin and Distribution of Deep-Sea Deposits,” hoping that some useful comparisons would have been made between the present sea-beds and the Chalk, the Gault, and the Greensands, which appear to be among the deepest water deposits now accessible as dry land. Instead of this we are merely told that chalk “must be regarded as having been laid down rather along the border of a continent than in a trueoceanic area” (NATURE, p. 134). All geologists are aware, since the publication of Dr. Gwyn Jeffreys' address to the British Association, and the appearance of Mr. Wallace's “Island Life,” that some naturalists regard the Chalk as a shallow-water formation, but the former opinion, pronounced as it was by one of the most competent judges, was based exclusively on the present habits of the very few genera of Mollusca that have survived from the Chalk period, and seems quite in contradiction to the far more important groups, the Sponges, Echinodermata, and the minute organisms of which the formation is so largely composed, while no opinion has yet found its way into the hands of geologists regarding the depth of water indicated by the Crustacea and the fishes of the Chalk. Mr. Wallace's collation of the Chalk, as a formation, with the decomposed coral mud of Ooahu, is so fantastic as to have failed to carry conviction to the mind of any competent geologist. The points of resemblance between some Globigerina ooze and the Chalk are so numerous and peculiar, that surely the assertion that the latter is a littoral formation, while the former is oceanic, requires strong support. The relative analyses of chips from the Chalk and of Globigerina ooze, quoted by Mr. Wallace, are not by any means final or conclusive. We all know that the silica has been removed and segregated into flints from the White Chalk at Shoreham, and that the iron and other metals are also segregated into crystallised masses, so that a comparison of the Chalk, minus these, is misleading. In like manner the Grey Chalk at Folkestone has lost all its oxide of iron by segregation and crystallisation, and many of the layers are cherty, and unduly rich in silica obtained probably at the expense of other layers in which it is now relatively scarce. During the ages that Chalk has been elevated and has acted as a sponge for the collection of rain water, who can say what other of its constituents may not have been dissolved away or metamorphosed? Siliceous sponge skeletons have been replaced by calcite, calcite shells have been replaced by silica, whilst aragonite shells have been entirely dissolved away. In like manner, can it possibly be contended that the absence of volcanic matter in the Chalk is an important distinction between it and Atlantic ooze? It is an accidental lithological distinction, but nothing more, and merely shows that volcanic dust was not being ejected in the same masses as at present. The Cretaceous and Eocene eruptions, so far as I am aware, are all fissure eruptions of vast magnitude, and the contemporary rocks in their vicinity seem to show that they were not accompanied by the showers of ash that mark eruptions from craters at the present day. Messrs. Renard and Murray have had exceptional opportunities of studying this question, and have no doubt convincing proofs of their statement regarding the littoral character of the Chalk deposit; but I really think that, considering the national character of the undertaking which made the collection of proof possible, it should no longer be withheld. Geologists at present, supposing my feelings are generally shared, are asked to believe that an enormous formation, which shows little, if any, trace of the proximity of land, and abounds with the remains of deep-sea life, was laid down upon a coastline; but beyond the extravagant assertion that it is decomposed coral-mud no reasons whatever for this belief are brought forward, nor are any areas pointed out in which an equivalent to the Chalk is in course of deposition, I cannot conceive why our official geologists have ignored this, one of the most important questions in the whole range of the science. It is little to our national credit that, having spent vast sums in the collection of evidence, we are still in the dark as to its geological significance.
Access optionsAccess options
Subscribe to Journal
Get full journal access for 1 year
only $3.90 per issue
All prices are NET prices.
VAT will be added later in the checkout.
Rent or Buy article
Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.
All prices are NET prices.