« AnkstesnisTęsti »
its vertical increase, then we should get not less than 20,000 years as the age of its outer portion only.
The area of land has also been increased by the agency of mangrove trees.* The wonderfully complex and tangled roots of these swamp-inhabiting trees tend to arrest the passage of sediment and so to form sandbanks, rising higher and higher, and supporting a more and more elevated growth of vegetation.
Mr. John Murray,† as a result of his observations in H.M.S. 'Challenger,' thinks that coral islands afford evidence of rest, or of elevation, instead of subsidence. He describes the ocean as swarming to a depth of 600 feet with pelagic gasteropods, pteropods, heteropods, cephalopods, fishes, &c., together with calcareous, siliceous, and other algæ, radiolaria, and foraminifera. As these die and fall into deep water, their calcareous skeletons become, during their long downward transit, dissolved by the carbonic acid in solution in the sea water; but not so when they fall on submarine banks a few hundred feet deep, where they lodge and accumulate. Some of the banks may originally have been old volcanic islands worn down by marine denudation. When these foundations are sufficiently raised by the accumulation of this shell débris the corals begin to build, and, owing to the greater supply of food on the outer side of the bank, they there build with great vigour. This, with the heaping up of the dead coral from the outside, and its solution in the interior, gives rise to an atoll with a central lagoon. There is, no doubt, much truth and justice in these statements of Mr. Murray; but, as Professor Prestwich observes, it is 'difficult to explain the peculiar conditions of the coral islands of the Pacific on any other hypothesis than Mr. Darwin's hypothesis, namely, that they indicate areas of 'slow subsidence.' For these islands are isolated, and have precipitous sides and central lagoons which may be 240 feet deep. In the Pacific there are also many raised islands with massive cliffs of coral limestone from two to three hundred feet high, and which yet rarely, if ever, expose the base of the reef, and so seem clearly to indicate that they have been first slowly formed by an upgrowth-which kept pace with local subsidence-and have since been raised to their present elevation. In some of the West Indian islands there has been elevation of still greater extent, such as that on the
*Professor Le Conte called attention to this agency.
† Proceed. of the Royal Soc. of Edinburgh, vol. x. p. 505, 1880.
northern coast of Cuba, where coral reef deposits have been to the height of from 1,000 to 1,100 feet.
As to analogous past conditions, our author observes:
'Examples due to the prevalence of the former conditions during certain geological periods are to be found in the widespread coral banks of the coral ray and other Oolitic formations; while the latter conditions may have possibly prevailed, and assisted, in some cases to the building up of some of the thick masses of coral limestones during Paleozoic times. . . . It is certainly singular that in the more recent geological periods we have nothing analogous to the gigantic columns of coral limestone now standing isolated in the depths of the Pacific. Were the Tertiary Seas too shallow, or were the changes of level too frequent or too rapid?' (P. 247.)
The consideration of this question of geological zoology leads us to notice what we deem the one blemish of an otherwise thoroughly excellent work. We refer to the antiquated and defective zoological classification which Professor Prestwich has adopted and put before us in his fifth chapter. It is true that zoology is not his special province, as also that he guards himself against certain criticisms by saying, what is most true, namely, that it is often expedient for 'the palæontologist and geologist, who have to work upon a different base, and with imperfect data, to adopt at times a 'standard somewhat different from that of the professed 'naturalist and biologist.' Nevertheless, as a somewhat elaborate classification of animals is presented, we cannot but regret that Professor Prestwich has not availed himself of the aid of one or other of our more advanced biologists.
It is true, indeed, as he says, that the large class of 'Worms is, with the exception of the Annelids, of no 'geological importance, as none of the Scolecida have been found in a fossil state.' Nevertheless as the Marsipobranchii are distinctly noticed, we think more than the mere word Pharyngobranchii' should be given with reference to that very significant type, the Lancelet, and that some reference should have been made to the class Ascidioida, whether or not included in the division of vertebrate animals.
It is also rather a shock to us to encounter the obsolete term Enaliosauria' as the one only designation for those two very distinct orders of extinct reptiles which include the Ichthyosauri and Plesiosauri respectively. But most surprising of all perhaps is it to read as an enumeration of the orders of birds, a list of the most antiquated character, one in which the Ostrich and other struthious birds rank as a mere order, co-ordinate with those now disused ordinal groups formerly
known as 'Grallatores,' 'Natatores,' &c. The two chapters on chemistry, mineralogy, and the composition of rocks are hardly up to date as regards the most modern authorities in these rapidly advancing departments of his subject. Besides these objections, we must also express regret that the work has not been more carefully read for the press. It would be an invidious and unworthy criticism to call attention in detail to mere misprints and errors due to imperfect supervision during publication, but it would be unjust not to affirm that such defects are much too frequent. These defects, however, are, after all, but small blemishes in a work of distinguished merit, which will be deservedly welcomed not only by specialists, but by all readers who take any broad and general interest in questions of science. Besides the chapters the contents of which we have briefly indicated, there are others which treat of disturbed and 'faulted' strata, of cleavage and joints, of mountain ranges, metalliferous deposits, igneous rocks and metamorphism. These are very valuable chapters, dealing as they do with questions to the elucidation of which Professor Prestwich has personally devoted so much study and so many patient observations.
We shall await with eagerness the second volume of this work, which, we anticipate, will be found even more interesting than the first, dealing, as it is intended to do, amongst other things, with the succession of life on the earth, and the evolution of the earth itself.
ART. IX.-1. Prospectus of the Association for Promoting a Teaching University for London, 1886; and Speeches of Lord Reay, Sir James Paget, Lord Justice Bowen, Lord Justice Fry, Sir Joseph Lister, and others, Members of the Association.
2. Higher Schools and Universities in Germany. By MATTHEW ARNOLD. Second edition. London: 1882.
3. The German Universities for the last Fifty Years. By Dr. T. CONRAD. Translated by JOHN HUTCHISON, with a preface by JAMES BRYCE, M.P. Glasgow: 1885. 4. La Question du Latin.
Par M. RAOUL FRARY. Paris:
HOUGH nothing is or ought to be very interesting at present but Ireland,' wrote Mr. Brougham to Earl Grey in 1828, I am sure you will be happy to hear how 'successful the opening of the University of London has 'been.' Lord Grey answered, truly and gracefully: "To 'you this must be peculiarly gratifying, for you have been the creator of this establishment, and your name will be for ever united with the improvements which may spring not only from this, but from the rival college, King's 'College, London, which never would have existed but for 'the success of your exertions.' Our illustrious contributor and the poet Campbell, who assisted him in the London University scheme, had the cordial support of this journal.* Indeed, but that the college in Gower Street was intended to be too strictly secular to admit of so religious a relationship, we might call it our godchild. Those were days of sectarian prejudices and religious tests; and as it was impossible then to procure for the Nonconformists, the Jews, and all 'sorts and conditions of men,' admission to Oxford and Cambridge, it seemed to us clear that they ought to be allowed to found a seat of learning, or the nucleus of one, for themselves, and that London was the proper place for this seat of learning. When the Duke of Wellington, as the head of the Church party, brought forward in the same year a scheme for a Church of England College in the Strand, with a chapel and daily services, we supported him as cordially as we had done Lord Brougham.† There were, we thought, enough churchmen in London-parents not
* Edinburgh Review, February 1826, vol. xliii. pp. 315-341. + Ibid. September 1828, vol. xlviii. pp. 235-258.
VOL. CLXIV. NO. CCCXXXV.
sufficiently rich to send their sons, or all their sons, to Oxford or Cambridge-to maintain such a clerical institution.
It seems strange that, whereas tradition ascribes the foundation of Oxford to Alfred, or failing him to Edward the Confessor, and there are authentic charters in existence which prove Cambridge to have been a great school as early as the thirteenth century, there should have been no University of London till the other day. London existed as a city many hundred years before either Oxford or Cambridge was founded. Paris, never a more important place, contained, if not in the time of Charlemagne, at any rate in the twelfth century, a school of the totum scibile,' human and divine, out of which sprang that noble University which was throughout the darkness of the Middle Ages as a bright light shining on a hill. In every capital in Europe which is not a mere mushroom, from Vienna to Copenhagen, there is a university with an endless mythical pedigree, and an ascertained longevity of three or four hundred years. Again, there is not, and perhaps there never has been in the world's history, a city more associated than London with poetry, literature, science, and art. Except Oxford and Cambridge, no English provincial town has as yet a name identified with the developement of knowledge or taste. But London, besides being a seat of government not inferior to Rome, has been a shrine of culture only excelled by Athens. It is not a question of how many great English poets, thinkers, lawyers, physicians, divines, philosophers, artists, historians, humourists, have lived, written, taught, and laboured there, but of how few have done so anywhere else in all England. Still, with two unimportant exceptions, the capital, till the end of the first quarter of the nineteenth century, possessed nothing in the nature of a university. One was the old School of Law, formed out of the Temple with its two societies, Lincoln's Inn, and the lesser affiliated Inns of Court. All were originally in the suburbs. The Temple is full of classic green recesses,' and with its fountain, quaint dials, and Elizabethan hall, forms an ideal college. Staple Inn with its gables, Dane's Inn, and the other oases and 'islands of quiet' within a step of Holborn and the Strand, have refectories and butteries. The other was Gresham College. Sir Thomas Gresham intended it to be an epitome of a university in London,' and a plan of it exists as it stood in the sixteenth and seventeenth century. It was essentially a collegiate edifice. There was a quadrangular lawn with four paths radiating from the centre to the angles