^. IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-S) 1.0 I.I 2.5 2.2 |« III 2.0 III 1.8 1.25 1.4 1.6 — ^ , 6" - ► % % -^ 7 /# '^S ^/J//fi W Photographic Sciences Corporation M 4 ^0. *^ S^ \ \\ .^n: If .^VX 6^ 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (7U) 872-4503 CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICIVIH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques ^ fS Technical and Bibliographic Notas/Notes techniques et bibiiographiquas The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. Coloured covers/ Couverture da couleur I I Covers damaged/ Couverture endommagie Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaurde et/ou pellicul^e Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque Coloured maps/ Cartes g^ographiques en couleur □ Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) □ Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur □ Bound with other material/ Relii avec d'autres documents a n D Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La re iiure serrde peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distorsion le long de la marge intdrieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajout6es lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte. mais, lorsque cela itait possible, ces pages n'ont pas 6x6 filmdes. Additional comments:/ Commentaires suppldmentaires; L'Institut a microfilm* le meilleur exempiaire qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exempiaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la m^thode normale de filmage sont indiquis ci-dessous. rn Coloured pages/ Pages ds couleur Pages damaged/ Pages endommagies Pages restored and/oi Pages restaur^es et/ou pelliculdes Pages discoloured, stained or foxei Pages dicoiories, tacheties ou piqu^es Pages detached/ Pages d^tachies Showthrough/ Transparence Quality of prin Quality inigale de I'impression Includes supplementary materii Comprend du materiel suppldmentaire Only edition available/ Seule Mition disponible I I Pages damaged/ I I Pages restored and/or laminated/ r^ Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ I I Pages detached/ r~l Showthrough/ I I Quality of print varies/ I I Includes supplementary material/ I I Only edition available/ D Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure. etc., ont 6t6 filmies i nouveau de fapon 6 obtenir la meilleure image possible. This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est film* au taux de rMuction indiqu* ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 12X 16X 20X 2bX 30X 24X 28X 32X Th« copy filmed h«r« ha* bMn raproducad thank* to tha o«naro*ity of: Legislature du Quebec Quebec Tha Imagaa appaaring hara ara tha bast quality poMibIa conaidaring tha condition and lagibility of tha original copy and in Icaaping with tha filming contract spacification*. Original copia* in printad papar covar* ara filmad baginning with tha front covar and anding on tha laat paga with a printad or illustratad impraa- *ion, or tha back covar whan appropriate. All othar original copiaa ara filmad baginning on tha firat paga with a printad or iliuatratad impraa- aion, and anding on tha last paga with a printad or illustratad impraaaion. Tha laat racordad frama on each microfiche shall contain tha symbol —^(meaning "CON- TINUED"), or tha symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever appiiea. Mapa, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure ara filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, aa many framea aa required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: L'axamplaira filmi fut reproduit grice A la ginirositA de: L^itlature du Quebec Quebec Les images suivantea ont AtA raproduites avac la plus grand soin, compta tenu de la condition at da la nettet* de i'exomplaire film«, et en c. >*'^rmit4 evec lea conditions du contrat da filmtsne. Lea axempieirea originaux dont la couvarture en papier eet imprim^e sont filmte en commenpant par la premier plat at en terminant soit par la darnlAre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impreaaion ou d'iiiuatration, soit par la second plat, salon le cas. Tous lea autras exemplairas originaux sont filmte en commen9ant par la pramidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la darniira page qui comporte une telle empreinte. Un dea aymbolaa suivants apparaftra sur la darnlAre image de cheque microfiche, seion le cas: le symbols — »> signifie "A SUIVRE", ie symbols V signifie "FIN". Les cartea, planchaa. tableaux, mc. pauvent Atre filmte A dee taux de rMuction diffirants. Lorsque le document eat trop grand pour Atre reproduit en un seul clichA, il est film* A partir de I'angle supArieur gauche, de gauche h droite, et de haut 9n bea, en prenant la nombre d'imagea nteassuire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrant la m6thode. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 t REPLY TO THE CRITICISMS OF JAMES D. DANA BT JULES MARCOU. INCLUDINQ DANA'S TWO ARTICLES WITH A LETTER OF LOUIS AGASSIZ. ZURICH PRINTED FOR THE AUTHOR, BY ZtJRCHER & FUxlRER. 1859. WjI p CRITIC PRIN I" p REPLY TO Tlin CRITICISMS OF JAMES D. DANA BV JULES MARCOU. INCLUDINfi DANAS TWO ARTIGI.ES WITH A LETTER OF LOUIS AGASSIZ. Z U K I C H PRINTED FOR THE AUTHOR, BV ZtJRCIIER & FURRER. 1859. .' V > I REPLY TO THE GUITICISAIS OF JAMES D. DANA. Different views of a question arc desirable and beneficial in order to elucidate scientific observations and theories, but it is not the same with controversial writings , which are usually a disgrace to science and scientific men. Fully convinced that geology has never been advanced a single step by such means , I have been very reluctant to engage myself on this irritating ground, although many opportunities have been pre- sented to me. But though such discussions are generally use- less and even injurious, there are cases in which silence may do harm; for if the attack rest without reply, many persons may believe the charges advanced to be true, and so the progress of science will be checked, and unjust blame and discredit be thrown where they are not duo. It is to avoid being placed in this position, that I now reply in a few words to the two articles of James D. Dana in Silliman's Journal, which contain so severe an attack on my observations. The criticisms of my opinions on American geology in Silliman's Journal commenced in 1854, and have since con- tinued with every opportunity; as yet I have not replied to them , unless it can be called a reply to have reprinted them in full in my Geology of North America , without a word of comment. I was silent, first, because at the time the first article against me appeared, i) I was in the deserts of California; se- condly, because the attack was anonymous, and I dislike fight- 1) Silliman's Journal, vol, xvii, March 1854; Notice of u Geolugicul lUap of the United States, etc. 4 MARCOU, RKPLY TO DANAS CRITICISMS. iiig in the dark; and thirdly, IVoin entire want of faith that any good could result from such personal controversy. The review of a portion of the Geological Map of the United States and liritish Proiinces, published in Silliman's Journal, Nov. 185G, i)y VV. P. Blake, contains statements that I can- not possibly consider as seriously presented. Besides , Mr. Blake received, without my knowledge, my specimens to describe, and my notes to publish; and from motives of deli- cacy should bave been the last person to attack my observ- ations in the Far West, instead of which he began directly, giving my specimens into unfriendly hands for description, and publishing, contrary to my desire, all the scratches and pencil marks to 1)0 found among my notes. The following is an example of his consideration for niy observations. In his travels for the Pacilic Railroad Exploration, Mr. Blake crossed mv route only at one locality, the Cajon Pass near San Ber- nardino, California. In his report upon my collection, Mr. Blake says : « Mr. Marcou states that he saw rocks in the Pass « precisely similar to those found between Rough and Ready, ((Grass valley and Nevada city, which contain veins of auri- « ferous quartz. To me the rocks of the lower portion of the « Pass appeared to be chiefly metamorphic , while those bear- «ing the quartz veins at Grass valley and vicinity were evi- « dently in great part of erupted greenstone. The specimens « which Mr. Marcou notes as coming from the Cajon Pass were iimost probably brought through there from Armagosa mines in « the Great Basin. » (See: Pacific Railroad Explorations , vol.111, Report on the Geology of the route of Lieut. Whipple, pag. 97 , 4° edition.) In reply to this, I say that I saw the rocks in the Cajon Pass forming immense dykes, and my specimens were taken from the rocks in situ. Mr. Blake describes the Cajon Pass in his report of his exploration , and I looked ea- gerly to find the facts on which he grounded his flat contra- diction of my observations; but I only found the following: « This part of the valley was past in the night and it was there- «fore impossible to make detailed observations on the varie- MARCOr, HKPLY TO DANA'S CIlITrCISMS. ft "ties and peculiarities of the jj;ranitic rocks. » (See: Pacific Hailrond ExploratUms y vol. V, Geological Iteporl of routes in Ca- lifornia- Cajon Pass; p. 88. 4" edition.) The last two articles, contained in the ninnbers for No- vember 1858 and January 1859, are signed by .lames I). Dana, one of the two proprietors of the Sillimans Journal and the chief editor of the Geological part, and must be considered as confirm- ing all the previous ones. To these I wish now to reply, although the only serious objections in Dana's criticisnj are ma(l(> by another person, who is not named. The following is iho lirst of Danas reviews. (lixlnicl from ihc Siliman'a Journal of Science , second series , vol. XXVI, n°78, November 1858, p. 323 etc.) Eeview of Maroou's „Oeology of North America",') by James D. Dana. The volume on Amcriciui Geology just published by Mr. .lulcs M.ircou , demands more than a passing notice. Coming from a Pro- fessor in the Federal Polytechnic School of Swilzcrland, who is known lo have traversed this country widely, and whose memoirs and Ame- rican geological map form part of the publications of the Geological Society of France besides being distributed through several European journals , it is of interest to all to inquire into the character of the work and the reliability of the author's conclusions. It will be remembered that former writings of the author on the same topic have been noticed in this .Journal ; and as he lakes ex- ceptions lo the statements which have been made, it is the more in- cundienl on us lo reconsider the subject with his later volume before us. We wish only to seek out the truth, that we may honor it, and here register it for the use of the science. 1) Goolopy of XorUi Anierleii, with Two Reports on tho Prairies of Arkiuisas and Texas , tho Rocky Mountains of New Mexico , and the Sierra Nevada of Cali- fornia, originally made for the United States Govcrnnient; by .TITLES ^URCOU, Profc8.sor of Geology in tho Federal I'olytechnie School of Switzerland, formerly United States Geologist, etc. lU pp., with three maps and seven plates. Zurich, I8r>r>. With regard to tho title of „United States (Geologist," we remark for the en- lightenment of foreign readers, that there is no such oftico under the Government, and no national Geological Corps. When an expedition for exploration and survey is organizing, some person is usually associated with the party for siiontiftc re- search , by appointment from tho Department In charge of tho survey. Those se- lected are sometimes good geologists and sometimes otherwise. 6 MAIU.or. IlKPLV TO l>AN.\» (.1111 HilSMS. Tlio work on llio (ieology of Norlli America conl.iins , (1) iiii ficcouiit of llic iiiillior's rosi'.irclins in Amoricn ; (2) a f^'oncnil ro- viow of iho ^(>olo},'y of llio roiitinoiil wilh rcfcrcnt^c to llio f,'iM)logical map; (3) a cliissilimtiou of llu! rnouiilains of part of North Aiuorica; (4) a rovitnv of liis r(>vi(nvers; {:)) a history of the progress of Ame- rican g('oh)gy. The (pieslion im|)ortanl to j^('oh)gisls — to European more than American — is, whether American geology is correctly represented. I. IIisTOHv oi- (iKoi.or.Y. — Mr. Marcou commences by repuhhsh- in^' the observations of Machire on the (i('oh)fiy of the United Stales with the acconijianying map, from vol. N'l. of the Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, doin^ full justice to Ifiis earliest of American explorers, lie reviews the labors of many who have fol- lowed him, making honorable mention, as he should, of Vanuxem, one of the ablest of our geologists, of llilehcock, Owen, and others. But we are sorry to seo imperfections in the iiislory, which evince that personal disappointments have warped the author's judgment. Professor Hall's connection with American paUeonlology is well known to the world. Mr. Marcou , enumerating in a paragraph the cultiva- tors of paheonlology in America , mentions wLesueiir, Harlan, Jellerson, Say, Green, higsby, Ua/inescpie, Troosl, Morion, Rcdfield, Lea, and Hitchcock;)) then, Conrad and Leidy , as taking the load of all, Iho ((best paheonlologisls in tlu; United Stales,*) and ends with whal lie calls ((the young |)aheontoIogists of the present day ,» ((Dr. Shumard, Holmes, Newberry, Meek, Wyman , Hillings, etc. » ; Hall's name is not included. He has honored him, however, with a separate pa- ragraph, in which he speaks of the (( PahTonlology of tlie Stale of New York by James Hall,)) as ((a very useful work;)) and then closes a disparaging sentence with, (( iho best part of it being the plates drawn by Mrs. Hall, and also the geological order.)) Conrad and Leidy are highly appreciated. Bui in his treatment of others , iho author shows that he has himself been reviewed. This is apparent also in ihe closing sentence of this brief History of American Geology. ((Maclure, Vanuxem, Hitchcock, Taylor, Conrad, Emmons, Lyell , de Verneuil, and David Dale Owen, are the only discoverers; other geologists have extended and detailed the just views and grand ideas that these illustrious savants were the first to divulge:)) —an asso- ciation of names that will surprise, by its omissions if not otherwise, those who know much of science in America and little of the influ- ences that have operated upon the author of this history. Mr. Marcou shows again thai he has had reviewers , in the remark that he makes about ((the half dozen liieroglyphical pamphlets)) published as Ihe i MARCOr. RKI'LY TO DANAS (HIUCISMS. \ (JcoloHicfil llpporl of Piogross of llio Canada Smvoy.') Ilo evinces Ih.il his American conclusions have mot Milli opposition, also, hy his slight of Foster and Whitney's investigations in northern Michigan, and of the various researches of iho Professors Rogers, and hy his studied neglect of others.") There are also im|)erfections in the History arising Irom a partial acciuainlancc with the subject and the science. Thus he speaks of Mr. K. .lames as having heen th(> lirst to recognize the «Ne\v lied Sandstone.) on the slopes on the llocky Mountains, when all he had any knowledge of was a red sandstone, llo speaks of the knowledge of the geographical extension of the «New Red.) being due to Dr. D. Houghton and others for Lake Superior, when no evidence of its existence in the Lake Superior region is yet known or was ever de- lected, lie s|)eaks of the discovery of the «Old Red » hy laylor, when the so-called ((Old Red.) is only tlie upper part of the Ame- rican Devonian. i • i • , ,i Without further specifications, it is plain that m this lustory llie author has neither dealt fairly with others or the subject. n. Review ok the Reviewers. - We refer to !his chapter merely to add that the personal feeling above attributed to the author, is hero acknowledged. We are very sure, that only the behel that Mr. Marcou was propagating in his publications erroneous views abroad led to the notices of his memoirs and lormcr map that liave so chafed him. On no other ground than a desire to promote the interests of science have the pages of this Journal been open to the criticisms. Ill Mountain Systems. - The author describes the mountain sy- stems of North America and their ages, as he supposes they must 1) As to the survey of tho two Cnnndns , it was lionorod ixt the two Hreat ITni- ,vei4r Exhibitions of London 1«51 , and Paris isr,5, witli n.edals, decorations oftl.(j "leplon of Honor, and even with a Kni«hf. title from the 8overe.t,'n8 o Kn^rland :aml France, and its Director (ieneral W. E. Lo^an, aided hy T. Stcrry- Hunt «u- !noraloffist of the survey, has shown to the seicnMrte world, with so much modesty !ana talent, the t,ru„d resnlU ami discoveries of their joint survey, that ""*!' "S >•';- ; mains for others to say, but to express their adniiration and gratitude tor the hall_^ "dozen hieroRlyphical ramphiets they have published, under tho title ot Report o. „ Progress of the Geoloijical Sureeij of Cunada.'' 2) Mr Marcou says, with elmracteristic self-complacency, and with evident irri- tation because others do not call „New Re.l,- what he docs: „Thc brothers Rogers and .Tames Hall try their best to suppress the New Red Bandstono tormat on in America," &c.; and after making various absurd statements and suggestions, bring- ing in Logan for a share of his attempted ridicule, ho adds respecting them, „1 would advise these honorable savants to consider If one of these determinations would not be preferable.." 8 MARCOU, REPLY TO DANAS CKITICISMS. be accor(^,fng to the theoretical views of Elie de Beaumont, A de- termination of the age and relations of each by means of observed facts would be positive knowledge and of some service to the science. IV. Researches. — The points in the explorations of the autiior which give his work special prominence, are the assumed identi- fication — (1.) of Triassic rocks in the Lake Superior region; (2.) of fhe Permian Formation over the slopes of the Rocky Mountains ; (3.) of Triassic rocks in the same Rocky Mountain regions; (4.) of Jurassic rocks in the same region. We should take pleasure in claiming for the author the estab- lishment of either one or all these points , if we could justly do it. The progress of American geology is largely due to foreign geolo.^ists — to Lyell of England , and De Vorneuil of France ; and they are honored for their labors. They were wise men; appreciating geo- logical evidence , they used it cautiously and surely , and made each step a step of real progress. They did not conclude, when they came across a red sandstone, that it was (he « New Red» or the «01d Red ; » or on the discovery of a magnesian limestone, that it was the magnesian limestone of the Permian. They knew, with all other geologists, thai mere color and mineral characters were the very worst test of equivalency between the rocks of the two conti- nents; that the test wdl not answer even for the United States alone; that an appeal to such characters in this period of geological science betrays great want of experience. They came to the country ex- pressly to subject all such considerations to the higher test of organic remains, and in this their great merit consists. Mr. Marcou, we re- gret to see, has taken the course which they rejected and which science long since repudiated. It is true the region he examined was nearly destitute of fossils. But there was so much the more reason for doubting, as all others had done before him. 1. Triassic Roclis in the Lake Superior Region. The only evidence that these rocks are Triassic , given by the author , is of the superficial kind just referred to. He has not claimed to lind a fossil in the beds or any proof that decides the question. He remarks that Dr. Jackson ((confirmed the justice)) of the view by finding beds with Pcnlamerus oblongus, an Upper Silurian fosbil, on Keweenaw Bay. But it is known that the strata of Keweenaw Point overlie the » ed sandstone ; and Hall has shown them to be Lower Silurian from the fossils ccMected there by Foster and Whitney. T i \ I I i MARCOU, REPLY TO DANA'S CRITICISMS. 9 I t J (See F. and W.'s Report, Part I, p. 118.) Even if the red sandstone were above the Silurian , this wouhl not make it Triassic , according to any known rule of geological reasoning. The similarity of the beds and the associated trap to the Con- necticut River rocks, led early to the supposilion that both migt be of the same age, but it was no basis for such knowledge as Mr. Marcou claims. Foster. Whitney, Hall, Logan, and others, have been over (lie same ground, and argue from the fossils and super- position that the rocks are as old as the Potsdam Sandstone. And yet Mr. Marcou still maintains, against all the investigations more recent than his owki , and on evidence which geologists know to be worthless , that the rocks are Triassic. Mr. Marcou states that these geologists hold the old opinion, when on the contrary his view is the old one, and the only one current until the evidence became known which these geologists themselves brought forward. 2. Permian Rocks in the Rochj Mountains. In the (dlineraire Geologique du Fort Smith el Napoleon, (Ar- kansas) au Rio Colorado de Californie , » in 1853, i) Mr. Marcou states, in his notes for Dec. 22, after describing what he calls the New Red Sandstone of the region, «Puis on a au~dessous un calcaire magnesien ou dolomitique epais a stratification reguliere de '/2 a un pied d epais- seur, plongeant au nord sous un angle de 10 a 15°, en stratification concordante avec le New Red, ct quelques assises dn magncsian lime- stone alternant avec le gres rouge a la base. Dans ce magnesian on a une couche avec fossiles tres-mal conserves; je crois reconnailre des fragments de Belemnite? un Nautilus? un Pteroceras? Quatre milles aprcs avoir marche sur ce magncHan on a la lave du volcan qui la recouvre ; et nous campons sur la lave, non loin des cones secon- daires du grand volcan. Pas de diluvium.)) And the «Resume» by himself, published in the same volume, says respecting these ob- servations: ((Shortly after (juitting the Colorado Chiquito we found here, with the last beds of the red clay of the Trias and in concord- ant stratification, a magnesian or doloraitic limestone, with very reg- ular strata from half a foot to one foot in thickness. Several beds contain fossils badly preserved; among which I recognised, how- ever , a Nautilus , u Pteroceras , and a Bclemnites. This formation , which is placed between the Carboniferous and the Trias, corre- sponds, without doubt, to the magnesian limestone of England, and is a new member which 1 add to the series of secondary rocks in North America. «This magncsian limestone has only four miles of 1) Published in the Pacilic Rsiilioad Reports , vol. III. 10 MARCOU, REPLY TO DANAS CRITICISMS. extent in the place Nvherc we crossed it, and disappears beneath lava and volcanic ashes. I have observed it farther to the west, and . appears also to occupy eastward one of the lesser chains of the Sierra de Mosoyon.)) , « iu,» In the new work, this paragraph remains the same, except that in the place of «a Pteroceras, a Belemnites . » it reads « a Gastero- poda, and perhaps a Belemnites ;» and after the words magnes.an limestone, in the line before the last. « (Permian))) is inserted. When the discovery of Permian fossils west of the Mississippi was announced, a few months since, before the Geological Society of France, Mr. d'Archiac put forward Marcou's claim to the first dis- coverv of the Permian in the Rocky Mountains , basing it upon this very observation , stating that this magnesian limestone was compared by him with the magnesian limestone of England , but that the fossils were too imperfect for determination.*) Here then, altliough the Permian magnesian bmcstone oi one part of England is not represented by a similar limestone m all other Permian regions of Britain, nor in a great part of the P.rmian region on the Rhine and in Russia; although Murchison says. ((In the ex- ploration of Russia, geologists were taught by the diversified Permian group not to dwell on the local mineral distinctions of central or western Europe . but to look to the wide spread of certain fossil re- mains, which, in vastly distant countries , occupy the same horizon ;.> although in North America, magnesian lia:estones are known ot all ages of the Potsdam, Trenton. Upper Silurian, Devonian, and Car- boniferous eras; and although it is very common in all formations that limestones are equivalents, even on the same contment, ot sand- stones and shales; yet we have the decision that a magnesian lime- stone in the Rocky Mountains, lying beneath what is regarded as the ((New Red Sandstone,)) is the eciuivalent of the magnesian lime- stone of England. This certainly cannot be regarded as a safe de- duction from geological evidence. The fossils were too imperfect to be identified. Yet among them, iin Naulilus, a Pleroceras, and a Belemnilen were recognized ; or as stated in his new work ((a Naulilus, a Gasteropoda [he meant to say Gasieropod, the singular number] . nud perhaps a Belemnito. Now «a Nautilus,) proves nothuig as to its being the magnesian limestone; ((a Pteroceras)) is direct testimony against it; and (o Belemnito)? according to all authors, allords the i(lea no more encouragement. ((A Nautilus, a Gasteropod , and a Belemnile?)) prove this magnesian limestone to be Cretaceous , or Ju- rassic, and not older than Jurassic , if the evidence may be used at 1) See this Journal , this volume, i». 260. MARCOU, REPLY TO DANAS CRlTICISaiS. 11 ^ fill. The c.nulious f^eologisl would have ccrliiinly douhted his gNow lied)) or Tricissic, if he found it overlying beds continuing what was probably a Beleinnite. The evidence, if worth anything, abolishes both the Triassic and the Permian together.*) Wo conclude, therefore, tliat credit cannot l)e claimed by or for the author, with regard to the discovery of the Permian in the Rocky Mountains. 3. Triassic Formation in the Rocky Mountains. Mr. Marcou observes that «lhis formation, which I was the first to notice and recognize in the West , (see A Geological Map of the United States and the British Provinces of North America; Boston , 1853, p. 42.) attains a very considerable development, and according to my observations has a thickness of four or five thousand feet. » Three divisions are made out by him, (1) the lower, the equivalent of the hunter Sandstein; (2) the middle, of the Muschelkalk ; (3) the upper, of the Variegated Marls or Keuper. Here , then , we have not only the Trias identified, but even its European subdivisions — though Willi an acknowledgment that the divisions are not « very certain. » We think it was a risky conjecture, for he found no fossils whatever to sustain the division into Keuper, Muschelkalk, and Banter Sandstein. This oir-hand settling of a problem that requires great care even among the fossiliferous beds of Europe , was a bold exploit in geo- logical gymnastics. But as to the great Triassic formation itself, the only palsconto- logical evidence is from a specimen of fossil wood , met with in la- titude 35° 42' 32" N. , and longitude 99° 36' 10" W. , «a full grown tree with branches, very much resembling the Piniles Fleurotii of Dr. Mougeot which is found in the New Red Sandstone of the Val d'Ajol in the Vosges ; » after which he adds , « and this establishes a connection between the New Red of France and that of America. » Thus one single fossil -that one, a species of Pine, and only «very much resembling the Piniles Fleurotii of Dr. Mougeot)), establishes. This is a very strong word for a geologist to use on evidence so small 1) This attempt at the identiflcation of Permian beds in the Rocky Mountains, is in strong contrast with the method of research of Professor Emmons in North Carolina. Prof. Emmons's discovery in that State of Tliecodont Saurians, the same groui) of Reiitiles that characterizes the Permian in Europe , constitutes a strong argument in behalf of the existence there of this formation. And if a full survey of all the fossils, both of plants and animals, and a comparison with those of Europe, lead to a moditication of the view, it is no discredit to him. He has ihc honor of aiding in bringing about the comparison and helping on towards the final result. Mr. Marcou's dashing style of work is ciitially in contrast with the mode of investi- gation which has at last resulted in detecting Permian strata west of the Mississippi. 12 MARCOU, REPLY TO DANA'S CRITICISMS. and so uncertain, with the fate of four or five thousand feet ol rock nt stake, and with the beds next beneath containing « perhaps Belem- niles » The prudent observer would have said, ((establishes nothuig;.> and such is the fact. The gypsum, the marls, red color and other such characteristics are also mentioned to sustain the parallelism. Bui it is now well known that gypsum, marls, and red color occur both i„ the Cretaceous and Permian of the west, well illustrating the re- mark, that such proofs are worse than useless: they have always been a fertile source of error; they might have warranted a bare suggestion but no more , and as far as suggestion goes, that of James had long the precedence. u • i -^ On such evidence, a region over the Rocky Mountains which is one thousand miles from north to south and eight hundred mdes from cast to west, is for the most part colored on the map as Triassic, or ((Terrain du Nouveau Gres Rouge.)) Such a region-iOOO miles by 800-would take in tpite a respectable part of the continent of ""^ The Triassic will probably be identified over the Rocky Mountain Region. But this going ahead of discovery shows more eagerness than good judgment or science. 4. Jurassic Rocks in the Rocky Mountains. The strata referred by the author to the Jurassic age we.b ob- served by him over the Llano Estacado and other regions in the vicinity. The identification in the case of these beds rests upon organic remains, as it ought; yet there is the same faith in mineral coinci- dences that has before been pointed out. The species mentioned are the Grypkea dilalala var. Tucumcarii, an Ostrea very near Ostrca Marsha, a Trigonia and a species of Aslarle; but the identification rests mainly upon the Ostrea and Gryphcu, which are figured on plate 4. Great importance , therefore , attaches to the right detormm- alion of these species; for if not .Jurassic, if associated in other strata in the west with well known Cretaceous species , they serve as cre- dentials for the Creteceous instead of the Jurassic. The bearing of the evidence from these fossils has been discussed in this Journal 'bv Wm. P. Blake,') who has pronounced them Cre- taceous; and this conclusion was previously arrived at by Professor Hall. But these persons are among the reviewers whom the autlwr discredits and we have consulted another able paUcontologist , highly commended by Mr. Marcou. The following are the views on the subject, which he has furnished us: ! 1) This Journal, [:i], xxii , 383, 185C. MARCOU, REPLY TO DANA'S CRITICISMS. 13 T I ((The species which Mr. Marcou refers lo Gryphea dilatalaSowerhy, is the true typic.il form of the Cretaceous species, Gryphea Pilcheri of Morion, as is shown bv Conrad in the Mexican Boundary Report, vol. i, p. 155, pi. vii, fig.^3 and pi. x, fig. 2; see also Professor Hall, in the Pacific Railioad Reports, vol. iii, plate 2, figs. 1 to 6; and Dr. B. F. Shumard in Marcy's Report on the Exploration of the Red River, plate 6, p. 205. As it is known to range through a considerable thick- ness of rocks in the Southwest, containing numerous well-known Cretaceous fossils, (on which Dr. G. Shumard in the Transactions of the St. Louis Academv of Sciences , vol. i , p. 289 , may also be con- sulted), we may safely conclude that it is distinct from Sowerby's Jurassic species. A glance at Morton's figure (Synopsis Organic Re- mains, plate 15. fig. 9), drawn from the original specimen from Ar- kansas , will satisfy any one of its identity in species with Mr. Marcou's figure (plate 4, fig. 2). , ^ ., ... o '(The Oyster figured on the same plate as the 0. Marshn bow. is the shell described by Dr. B. F. Shumard in Captain Marcy's Red River Report (p. 205. and fig. 2, plate 5), under the name of Oslrea subovala. It occurs in the Cretaceous at Fort Washita, along with Ammmiles vcsperlinus Morion . Gryphea Pilcheri Morton , (G. dilatata of Marcou). and species of Exogyra, Peclen, Aslarte , etc. Both of these species, the Oslrea and Gryphea , \\ere found extensively through the Cretaceous formation west of the Mississippi by Dr. G. Shumard.)) According, therefore, to the best recent authorities, the fossils supposed to be Jurassic are really Cretaceous, and no evidence of Jurassic rocks in the great west is published as such by Mr. Marcou. This is bad luck for the Jurassic , Triassic and Permian of the Rocky Mountains, on which his claims to a place among the ((discoverers)) rests His results, reduced to the simple facts ascertained, amount onlv to this-that the geology of the Rocky Mountain region includes Cretaceous and Carboniferous rocks-a fact that was quite well known DGlOrG Whoever than may identify true Permian, true Triassic, or true Jurassic strata, beyond the Mississippi, will not have borrowed from Mr. Marcou , and can owe him no credit. But the subject is not one of mere credit to any person; for it is unfortunate in its bearing on the progress of geological science to have false views about some 500,000 square miles of territory, and much more besides , spread widely abroad through reputable Journals, and Transactions of distinguished European Societies. \\f -aieht here leave the author's researches. A few other topics, howevc. , .nay have a brief word. And while criticising his lab()rs, we would say that his work contains many observations that are better than his inferences. 14 MARCOU, REPLY TO DANA'S CRITICIS^IS. We cite , ol first . from our excellent palaeontologist ngain respect- ing some Cretaceous and Carboniferous fossils. « Tlie largo Gryphea or Exogyra (plate 3 , fig. 1) referred to G. sinuala of Sowerby, lam strongly inclined to believe is E. pondcrosa of Ra-mer, (Kreide von Texas / plate 9 , fig. 2) , wliich is only a variety of E. coslala Say , as has been shown by Conrad in the Mexican Boundary Report, page 154, plate 9, fig. il. The figure given by Roomer represents a small individual, but he mentions that it grows to a great size. The only dilVerence between E. pondcrosa and E. coslala , is that the latter is generally marked by distinct radiating cosl.'e, while the former has none, or is but very obscurely marked in this way. There is, how- ever, every intermediate gradation in this respect, between the two varieties. Both varieties occur in New Jersey, Alabama, and Ten- nessee, as well as in the Southwest. Sometimes the var. ponderosa attains a very large size , and it is not unfrequently from two to three inches in thickness.)) «The Gryphea Pilcheri of Marcou (plate 5) has well marked dif- ferences from his Gryphea dilalala (the true G. Pilcheri of Morton). In referring the shell to G. Pilcheri, he follows Roomer , who also fell into the same error, (Kreide von Texas, p. 75, pi. 9, fig. i). These dilFerences are seen in the figures. Compare figure 5, plated, with that of his G. dilalala and Morton's figure of the true G. Pilcheri: the beak of the latter is truncated while that of the former is angular and laterally curved. This peculiar form has been noticed by Conrad (Boundary Survey Report, vol. i, plate 9, fig. 2ab) as a variety of G. Pilcheri and designated G. Pilcheri var. navia (see also Hall , Pa- cific Railroad Reports, vol. iii, p. 100). I feel convinced that it is distinct from the true G. Pilcheri of Morton , (Marcou's G. dilalala). » ((The shell figured on plate 7, fig. 3, as Spirifer slrialus, is the S. cameralus of Morton , (Amer. Jour. Sci., xxix, 1836, p. 150, pi. 2, fig. 3) as has been determined by Prof. Hall. Roemer described it under the name of S. Meuscbachams (Kreide von Texas, p. 88, pi. xi, fig. 7), and in Stansbury's Report (Expedition to the Great Salt Lake) il is named Sp. Iripiicalus by Hall. Owen referred it to Sp. fasciger Eichwald. It is very common in the west , ranging from Ohio to the Rocky Mountains , and from Nebraska to New Mexico ; Mr. Hayden found it in the Black Hills. It i> known to range up nearly to the base of tlie Permian in Kansas ; but I have no knowledge of its hav- ing ever been found in Lower Carboniferous rocks. Figure 2 on the same plate also referred to 5. slrialus, I am inclined to believe is not that species ; some four or five American species appear to have been confounded by diiVerent authors under that name. There are many other American Carboniferous species set down as identical by Mr. MARCOU, REPLY TO DANA'S CRITICISMS. 15 Marcou and ol'iers, but it is well known to American pala;ontologists that the whole subject requires c.ireful revision. » « Mr. Marcou, on page 67, in a note, mentions that fossils from Vancouver's Island, have been determined as Cretaceous by F. B. Meek; but he thinks the determination an error, and that they are .lurassic. In the paper referred to (Trans. Albany Institute, vol. iv, ;). 37), Mr. Meek speaks of the fossils placed in his hands by Dr. Newberry as belonging apparently to two rocks. Part of them he pronounced decidedly as Cretaceous— among them a Daculile, which is not distinguishable from It. ovalus. As regards the rest, which were the larger part, ho gave no decided opinion. Subsequently, (but before the publication of Mr. Marcou's work) he mentioned to Dr. Newberry that the latter were probably Jurassic, and so it is stated by Dr. Newberry in the Pacific Railroad Report, vol. vi, p. 66.» On page G4 , Mr. Marcou speaks of the Coal Measures at Umpqua in Southern Oregon , where they are not known. He has overlooked the Eocene Tertiary of California. He makes the strata in California, from which Dr. Trask describes Baculiles and Ammonites, Jurassic, when they are obviously Cretaceous. But it is not necessary to enter into further details. V. Geological Map. — This map is open to most of the objections noticed in the former reviews in this Journal,^) and we need not repeat. With regard to the region beyond the Mississippi , we refer again to the palteontologist whose opinions we have cited, as he is well acquainted with that part of the continent. He observes respect- ing the great yellow (Triassic) area on the map , of more than 500,000 square miles: « We now know beyond any reasonable doubt that all the country from the Platte to the British Possessions, and from the Missouri to the Black Hills is occupied bv Cretaceous and Tertiary rocks. And as regards the region from the Platte southward to the Red River, very far the larger part is known to be not Triassic, while it is possible that the Trias may occur in some parts of it. » ((The surface formations of the Llano Estacado , instead of being Jurassic, are Cretaceous; this is plain from the section of Pyramid Mountain , and also from numerous other facts collected by recent explorers. If the Jurassic rocks exist there , which I am inclined to believe is the case, they are, as at the Black Hills, an underlying and not an overlying rock.)) Again, «over the region, north of the Llano Estacado which on the map is colored as Jurasssic, the Cre- taceous and Tertiary probably extend ; but the Jurassic may be looked for over a narrow outcropping belt along the east side of the crest of the mountains.)) These observations are by one who hos facts as T I) Volume xvii, p. 199, 1851, and xxii , i,. 383. le MARCOU, REPLY TO DANA'9 CKITICISMS. a basis for his conclusions, and Nvho admits n douM until it-is fully •■"Tincli;;r!wf:Ld say that our reconsideration of the lal^rs of M M r ou in America has not raised our estimate of .e.r value Wc know well that if any American geologist had '"'M^ped ouUlr;Ua . ml synchronized those of America and Europe on such data as haNe aUsled he author of the « Geology of North America » he wou me be n deen.ed young in the science, with much yet to arn ore h could have 'a sober hearing. XVe cannot, therefore hmk hi his former reviewers and opponents deserve because thev ddfer ronlm either to have their names expunged from American geo- oTcal Tistor or thrown into discredit; nor do we believe that their ^;4u ti nliill seriously suUer from the judgment o our ambitious R jckv Mountain explorer. Finally , our readers must be fully per- suaded that «Marcou's Geology of North America ,» is not « good :^h:riiy.»-except with regard to the author --^j-^^^^V^^^^I^^-^^^^' UNITED STATES GEOLOGISTS. - Mr. Dana commences by ccenlishtcnins foreign readers with regard to the title of mted States Geologist, . and says there is no such ofBce under the government. A sufficient answer to this statement .s found in Dana's address as President of the American Association for the year 1854, on retiring from the duties of President en- titled- On American Geological History, New Haven, 1856; at pa-e 5 I find J. W. Foster and J. D. Whitney United States Geologists. The quarto report of a Geological Survey of Wis- consin, Iowa, und Minnesota, 1852, is signed by David Dale Owen, United States Geologist. The octavo Report of a Geological Reconnaissance of Wisconsin in 1848, is signed by D. D.Owen, United States Geologist for Wisconsin. The Report on the Geology of the Lake Superior Land District , 1850-51, in two parts and two volumes, is signed in each by J. W. Foster and J. D Whitney , United States Geologists. The Report on the Geological Survey 'of the Mineral Lands of Michigan, 1850, is signed by Charles T. Jackson, United States Geologist. These examples show that the title of United States Geologist is sufficiently common and well understood , and although there is no national geological corps, the United States goveniment employs geologists who then become United Stales Geologists. MARCOU, REPLY TO DANA'S CRITICISMS. 17 HISTORY OF GEOLOGY. - In the Introduction to my Geology of North America ai'C these words : « Strange notions « upon the geological discoveries that have been made in ((America, and some facts (juite distorted and misrepresented, ((having found admittance into several works, especially an ((address: On American Geological History, by James D. Dana, (( and in the text of a (( Geological Map of the United States and ff- British North American, by Henry D. Rogers, where there (( is a paragraph entitled : History and Literature of Geological i< Research in the United States; I thought it would be more just (( to those who made these discoveries , to cite from their own ((works, giving the officicl date of their publications, so that « each one may be able to judge for himself of the truth and ((value of their discoveries. To this end I have given a Chapter (( entitled : A Synopsis of the History of the Progress and Discov- «eries of Geology in North America, in which I have placed (( quotations taken from all the official sources to which I have ((had access.)) Mr. Dana has devoted a page of his Review to this Syn- opsis, and concludes by the following sentence: « Without further specifications it is plain that in this History the author has neither dealt fairly with others or the subject. » The History of Geology is a matter of facts and dates, beginning in 1809, an epoch quite near, and therefore easily verified. I gave all the discoveries with the date at which they were made, as I believed truly and impartially ; — if Mr. Dana thought I had dealt unfairly with « others and the subject » , he had only to give facts and dates to show this, — but not at all; he con- tents himself with personal abuse, and says at the conclusion of the article that I have (( expunged names from American geo- logical history. r> Happily for me, Messrs. Dana and Rogers published severally an American Geological History, in 1856, and it will be easy to show by comparison, who merits the charge ofhavingea;/)MW(;ed warned /rom American Geological History. Mr. Dana places Mr. B. Silliman Senior among the lead- ers of Geology in America, putting his name immediately after 2 Si 18 MAUCOU, REPLY TO DANA'S CWITICISMS. that of Maclure, the Father of American Geology. Mr. Silliman is certainly a friend and promoter of science; ho was form- erly a good lecturer on popular geology, and originated the Journal of Science and Arts, which he carried through the whole of the first series with much more ability, tact, and justice, than have been latterly shown in its management; but this does not constitute him a leader of American Geology , or give him a right to the second place among the discoverers. Dana says : « Morton was the first to distinguish the North American Cretaceous bcds.» This claim in favor of Morton is not only false and unjust towards the true discoverer Vanuxem, but against the printed opinion of Morton himself, who in sev- eral publications says : « Mr. Vanuxem was the first to distinguish the Chalk formation in America. » In Dana's history the name of Vanuxem is expunged from among Cretaceous observers, and also that of Conrad. The exclusive credit given by Dana to James Hall and Henry D. Bogers for all that has been done on the Paleozoic strata of North America, calling their labors the nkeys», « a standard of comparison for the whole country and even for the world, » is by far too exclusive; the keys possessed by these two geologists, if any they have, must be those of Vanuxem, Emmons, Conrad, Ma- ther, Whelpley, Henderson, Lesley, Taylor, etc. I have shown by dates in my Synopsis the part taken by Hall and Rogers in the classification of the American Paleozoic strata, and although Mr. Dana may think they did the whole, their share in truth is far below that of Vanuxem, Conrad, D. D. Owen, Emmons, Taylor, de Verneuil, Troost, Saflford, and Swallow. Dana expunges from the investigators of Canada and the British Provinces a/^ the names of the first pioneers , such as: Capt. Bayfield, Baddeley, Bichard Brown, J. B. Jukes, Bonnycastle, and Gesner, imitating the example of Messrs. Logan and Hunt, who in their works on British America never give credit to anybody but themselves. For example I cite the following phrase. « Pour les faits geologiques et pour ce qui se rap- porte a la structure physique du pays, tout est du ^ M. Logan\ I MARCOIJ, REPLY TO DANA'S CUITICISMS. 19 la min/'ralogio , ainsi (|iio la chimic dos rochcs niotamorphifjucs ot dos oaux iniiioralcs sont Ics n'sultats dos travaux do M. Storry-IIunt, (jui a redij^6 cc iiicinoiro. » Sec: Esquisse G4o- togique du Canada, by Logan and Ilnnl; p. 14. Paris, 1855. Besides the names already given, Dana expunges from American Geological History those of Edwin James, By rem Lawrence, Thomas Nuttal, Bafinescjue, Godon, de Castelncau, Daniel Sliarp, Yandell, Koch, Ducatel, Alexander, Booth, Tyson, Cozzens, Featherstonhangh , Lieber, White, etc. etc., all which arc given, with an account of their labors and discoveries, in my Geology of North America, and will show to the impartial reader who merits the accusation of « a partial ac(juaintance with the subject » and of having « expunged names from American Geological History. » In a History and Literature of Geological Research in the United States, by Henry D. Rogers, names are expunged from American Geological History not only now and then, as it is the case with Dana, but they arc swept out en masse, until there remain hardly any to support the two brothers Rogers, who seem to have performed by far the greater part of the researches themselves. For instance he expunges from the Pa- leozoic formations the names of Vanuxem, Conrad, D. D. Owen, Emmons, Mather, de Verneuil, Troost, Safford, Swallow, Tuo- mey, Norwood, etc. , in fact all the names connected with these rocks, except Eaton, Taylor, Gesner, and Dawson. The name of Vanuxem is expunged as a matter of course from the history of the Cretaceous strata, as it is in Dana's account. As for the New Red Sandstone formation, Mr. Rogers not only expunges all the names of geologists connected with it, but the rocks themselves, Permian, Bunter Sandstein, Muschel- kalk, and Keuper, are expunged from American deposits. Lastly Mr. Rogers expunges from the Tertiary formations the name of Dr. Leidy! and from the Quarternary and Mod- ern formation the name of Agassiz ! ! TRIASSIC ROCKS IN THE LAKE SUPERIOR REGION.— Mr. Dana says that my view as to these rocks is «thc old \ 20 M AIU.OU, HEPI.Y TO U ANAS r.unicisMH. ono and Uk' only ono cm rent UMlil tlio evidencf Ix'oamo knoNvn hich FosKM", Wlvtnoy, Hall. Loj^an >v wai and otluTS l)iouj;lil lo>'- 1 \)Vii Mr. Dana's pare Ion, but I linut mine are only « hazardous guesses » , « geological gymnastics «. and the « tests of e(iuivaloncy » given by mo. « sconce has Ion." since repudiated. » In order to give more weight to his criticism Mr. Dana has consulted an able palaeontologist, «h,ghly commended by me>>. one c.>vho has facts as a basis for his conclusions, and who admits a doubt until it is ful y ron.oved bv investigation.)) The name of this able pala3ontologist is not given but as he is said to be ^^well accquainted with the region beyond the Mississippi)), it can bo rm other than Mr. J. B. Meek , whoso personal acquaintance with <'hal part of the con- tinent)) is not very extensive. Messrs. Hall, Meek, and Dana in the dotormination of the relative ago of strata, adnut only pahrontological evidence, (.- them all geognostical characters must disappear before the J m of fossil Vomains; Uthology is good for nothing, and «an appeal to such characters in this period of geological science ) ii I t I \ . MMUAiV, aiil'LV TO DANA 8 ClUilCISSlS. 21 holrnys f,'rcat wnnt of expcrlcnco)) , snys Mr. Dana. «Kno\vinf^ as wo do that litlioloi^ical characlors aro of no valiic whatovor as a fj;ui(l(« in drawitii^ a parallel hctWfMMi these formations and tlioso of the old world)), say Messrs. Meek and llayden; soo: »(Jn the so railed Trinssic Hocks of Kansas and i\('hraska; SilH- man\s Journal; Jan. IS')'), vol, xwii, p. 34. As fortius strati- grap/iical characters, lluiy do not even mention them. My way of ol )servM) H, or (juvssimj as they call it, is wholly dillerent. I consider slratiyraphtf as the first of all the chaiacters , and I spare no pains to ascertain it by direct and numerous ob- servations; then com(! fossil remains, and lastly the litholoyical charact(Mvs. 1 always try as lar as possible; to use these direo dilferent series of chiU'acters together, and when one or even two of them fail com|)letely, 1 apply myself with more care to examine the one or two that remain. That is , I follow the method pjirsued by all practical geologists. I regard the stra- tigraphical charac'ers, as 1 said above, in their full signilicance; su|)erposition, discortlance, inclination, direction, etc., as .sm- perior to the Iwo other series of characters ; then come the organic remains, and lastly the lithological characters, which are the least important, but still useful wiien considered by a geolo- gist of great practical experience. I will remark, by the way, that when Messrs. Dana, Meek, Hall, and Blake admit only the paheontological characters, and say ((that the region 1 traversed was nearly destitute of fossils,» they take great care to reject the determination of the few fossils I was able to gather, saying ((that they are not de- termined right)) — notwithstanding their dcternunation by do Koninck, de Verneuil, Agassiz, d'Archiac, etc. So if they ad- mit the characters of fossil remains , it is with the curious and modest condition, that nobody else but themselves can rightly interpret them. It would have been much easier for these learned observers to say at once that I am not a geologist, anil that they will pay no attention to my writings, than to deny my observations in detail as they have done. I have already replied to the objections of Mr. J. B. Meek 22 MARCOU, REPLY TO DANA'S CIIITICISMS. as to my determinations of fossils, in a Letter on some points of the Geology of Texas, New Mexico, Kansas, and Nebraska, Zurich 1855, tlioreforc 1 will now consider only the views which Mr. Meek did not think best to communicate to me in his letter of 22. Aug. last, declining my frank request for his opinion, on the ground that he had no time to study as care- fully as ho should wish my Geology of North America. Mr. Dana was more favored; Mr. Meek tells him, that my Spirifer striatus var. triplicatus is the So. cameratus of Morton , — the figure and description of Sp. cameratus in Silliman's Journal, 1st series, vol. xxix, p. 150, are so imperfect that it is not possible to decide to what species that fossil belongs — and that my Spirifer striatus is not that species. I differ from Meek, Hall, and Morton as to the propriety of creating a species under the name of Sp, cameratus for that fossil , and I think, in accordance with de Koninck, who has investigated the subject, specimens in hand, that it is only a variety of the true Spirifer striatus. As for the Sp. striatus, iig. 2, pi. vii of my Geology of North America, I maintain that it is that species, not only from my own determination, but also from the de- terminations of de Vcrneuil and de Koninck. In speaking of my Spirifer striatus var. triplicatus Mr. Meek says that «he has no knowledge of its having ever been found in Lower Car- boniferous rocks », and he repeats that assertion with regard to the Terebratula Via, Terebratula Mormonii, Terebratula sub- tilata, etc., in his last publication entitled: Geological Explo- rations in Kansas, Philadelphia 1859. This may be the case wilh Mr. Meek , who places the upper part of the Lower Carboni- ferous rocks of the Far West above the coal measures , a mistake arising probably from the neglect of stratigraphical characters, but that does not prevent others from finding these fossils where I place them, beloic the coal measures, in the upper part of the Mountain Limestone. Further, Mr. Meek says: ((There are many other American Carboniferous si)ecios set down as identical by Mr. Marcou and others (what docs he mean by others?), but it is well knowm to American paltTon- 7 lf how- follows: i, n°79, 'rofessor as at the iitions in ic of ihe specially wed, but his geo- I Iowa to cred"' '^ nir.ciUo nent, noi t also by and that the phy- on of the luch light incnl,)) — extended, y Rogers, of various surveys, and that Marcou in extending the colors of the Triassic formation over the 500,000 square miles of the Rocky mountains, and laying down also the Pernn'an and Jurassic over the same region, was no more culpable than Hall or Rogers in covering it with Cretaceous. 4. That Marcou is mistaken in regarding the Lake Superior Sand- stone as Triassic. 5. That it is hardly credible that Mr. Marcou should have been so completely mistaken in his identification of Oolitic beds in the west; and that the two species collected by Marcou from the beds are most allied, in Professor Agassiz's opinion, to Jurassic species. 6. That Mr. Marcou knows that lithojogical characters are of no value in identifying geological horizons ; and that adding these cha- racters to other general evidence for the Triassic and Oolitic rocks is not blameablc. The claims which Mr. Marcou has put forward in his work arc: (I) the correct determination of the Red Sandstone of the Lake Su- perior region ; (-2) the identification , for the first lime , of the Permian over the Rocky Mountain region; (3) the same, of the Triassic; (4) the same of the Jurassic. I have presented evidence proving, as 1 believe, that he was wrong in each case; and hence, that the claims of prediscovery which he is now urging over Europe are groundless. Besides this, I have pronounced the work abusive of such men as the Rogerses, Hall, Whitney, Logan, Hunt, and many others, and grossly unjust to American science and geological history, while full also of groundless personal claims. 1 review some of these points. Supposed Triassic of Lake Superior.— VroL Agassiz admits that he believes Mr. Marcou to be wrong with respect to the Triassic («New Red))) character of the Lake Superior Sandstone , and thus we do not differ as to this one of the claims. Now this question of the Lake Superior Sandstone is the one that especially calls out Mr. Marcou's opinions of American geologists. Making these rocks , and the Connecticut river and Virginia beds , as well as 500,000 square miles of territory over the Rocky Mountains, «New Red,)) he is indignant that Hall, Whitney, Logan, Professor Rogers, etc., do not follow in his track. After giving a one-sided view of opinions on the different rocks which he classes together as undoublcd uNew Redw he says: «In accord with the geologist James Hall , the brothers Rogers refer all the Red Sandstone Formation along the Atlantic slope (see: Geological Map of the United States, by Henry D. Rogers, page 32; in the Physical Atlas of Natural Phenomena; Edinburgh, 1856) to the Jurassic epoch. Their opinion, however, is not explained by H. D. Rogers in a very clear and concise manner. In page 29, he says 32 MARCOU, REPLY TO DANAS CIUTICISMS. positively aJurassic; ropresoiUod in Virginia and Norlli Ciirolina by ji group of hilumiiious coal-measures, and in iho valley of the Con- ueclicul and on the Atlantic slope, froui the Hudson lo Norlli Carolina; and again, in Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, l.y hells of a red shale and sandstone. Triassic and I'cnnian, not represented by any known American deposits;)) and in page 32 Rogers says: «the Conlinont (North America) ond)races an extremely small extent ol the Older Mesozoic or Trinssic and Jurassic formations.)) Further ; ((Geo- graphical distribution. - Commencing at the North-Easl, the Hrst tract of Triassic or Jurassic red sandstone, cto) I call the attention of the reader to the expressions first Triassic and Jurassic, and next Triassic or Jurassic; and. or, are two dilVerent words. A few lines further on ho says: «Thc red rochs of Prince Edward Island pertain probably to both the Coal period and to the carliesl Jurassic, etc. . .»; and also: ((The vegetable fossils in the Connecticut sandstone^, dis- play such alliances with those of the Jurassic coal rocks of Eastern Virginia as to place the carli/ Jura,asl l)(»- iii^' idcMilical with yours, associalod willi Oiyplica, Imcciamus, and Ammomiis of lower Crolaccous 8|)(;cies.» Willi such (jvidenco, even llic exact idenlificalion of llie two fossil shells is of little iniporlanco. Tlu; Cretaceous is the lowest formation in wlii(^li leaves of any dicotyledons have heen found. I'rofessor Agassi/ stales that Mr. Marcou is a good Jurassic g(^o- logist. IJul this docs not nirect iho case in hand. For ho had hut two or three fossils ahout which to use his Jurassic judgment; and if this judguHMil lias pronounced fossils to ho Jurassic that really oc- cur in ihc west associated with Cretaceous species , or if his know- ledge of rocks in Europe has led him to think he can tell Permian, Triassic, or Jurassic rocks hy their lilhological characters, when ho sees them in America, it has served him hadly. We regard it therefore as still Irue that Mr. Marcou's Triassic of Lake Superior, is not Triassic; and in the Rocky Mountain region, his Permian is not proved to he Permian, his Triassic not Triassic, and his Jurassic not Jurassic. Whore arc then his discoveries? Map. — As regards the geological map-making, there is litlh? re- semhlance hetwcen the cases of Rogers and Mall and Mr. Marcou. The former do not ck-iim to ho discoverers over the Rocky Mountairj region, and Mr. Marcou does. Mr. Marcou, while remarking that the colors to the north and south of the course he followed are only approximative, says, «/ am sure of the limits of Ihe formations on the line I have explored near the 35th parallel of latitude;)) and guided hy this sure determination, he marked the Triassic on his map, and then, at a hazard, influenced hy his views of earlier explorations, he spread the Triassic color far north over the 500,000 s(iuare miles. Now if liis identification of the Permian and Triassic was in each case an error, what shall we say of the 500,000 square miles? and what of his map, if this is all wrong, and in addition his idenlifica- lion of Triassic in the Lake Superior region? He cannot rightly shield himself hehind any geologist , or tiie common usage of following the host compiled results for fixing the lines. Thcorelical inferences may he good hy way of suggestion; hut loo eagerly followed they lead to just the errors Mr. Marcou has made. Rut his system for the West has not even the show of prohahility in its favor. It is well known, and Mr. Marcou admits it, that Cre- taceous fossils and rocks occur ahout the very summit plains of the i MARCOU, RKPLY TO DANAS CRITICISMS. 35 • i f Rocky RIounl.iins. Tlio n.-iliiral iiifcroiicc is, ihcroforo , lli.it wIkmi in Crol.iocoijH limes llioso sumiiiils woro uiulor Wiilcr, llio sc.i ;ilso exlfiidcd over wli.il jiio now tlin e.islorn slopes of llio niounliiins, iuni Miiglil have covored (lu'in with Cr(>lacuous hcds; iind lliat tlius the Crclacooiis should ho oxpcclcd to ho tho surfaco rormalion, (it is undorslood ih.it tho (lucslion relates to the surface formation, as the colors refer in all cases to this,) and that any Jurassic, Triassic, and Permian, if they exist, should he covered hy it. This, I say, is what should naturally ho expected. Moreover, this is what all researches since Mr. Marcou was over tho rojL,'ion are tending to prove ; tluiy sustain Hall and others in coloring the greater part of Iho llocky Mountain slopo Cretaceous. Tho inferior hods, as the Pahcontologisl (pioled from in my paper states, may ho looked for as outcropping heds ahout the has(! of the ridges or crests of tho mountains. Mr. Marcou's map is hence not only at variance with receni researches, hul also with reasonahio views of western geology. Wo cannot see ihcroforo that Mr. Marcou's claims as a discoverer are in any one case sustained, or that his merits aro in any respect eniiancod hy his American researches. And wo certainly should not go to him for an exposition of American geology. Professor Agassiz knows well our American geologists and ap- preciates their lahors; and he writes ahout them in a did'orent style from Mr. Marcou. But on this point it is not necessary to dwell. As to this hist attack I have only a word to say. — First: Mr. Dana thinks Agassiz' (.iilTorencc of opinion as to the ago of the Lake Superior Sandstone will l)e a mystery to me. But we visited Lake Superior together in 1848, and have often since discussed the question without being able to agree, a difTerenco of opinion that each is willing to allow tho other, however strange it may seem to Mr. Dana. Secondly: Mr. Dana speaks repeatedly of my ill treatment of the American Geologists, and as this may create a prejudice against mc I will say, that / honor and respect the labors of American Geo- logists, as I think I have shown in my Geology of North Ame- rica. But because my views differ from those of Messrs. Hall, Rogers, Blake, Logan, Hunt, Meek, Whitney, Foster, and Dana , is no reason for their speaking in the name of the Ame- rican Geologists. Besides, I have never considered the accident of birth as having any relation to geology, and I have not 'if' : )■ 36 MARCOU, REPLY TO DANA'S CRITICISMS. enquired, if H. D. Rogers of Glasgow is a Scotchman, or Mr. Dana a native of Buncombe, if Hall is a subject of the Pope, or Logan an Englishman; for these matters have nothing to do with their geological opinions and views. It is almost needless for me to repeat that 1 maintain my observations to be rigorously exact. The arrogant lone of superiority assumed by Mr. Dana is unfortunately but poorly adapted to «fully persuade» his readers as he desires. To accomplish this object the merits of my Geology of North America should have been calmly considered, and its un- worthiness have been proved by facts and dates. As it is, 1 have good hope that the highly seasoned articles of Dana relieved by the remarks of Agassiz , may serve to stimulate the appetite of the impartial geological reader, to discover for himself where the truth lies, and I cheerfully leave the result to his decision. Zurich (Switzerland), March 1859. LETTBE EELATIVE A LA PUBLICATION DES NOTES DE SON EXPLORATION DES MONTAGNES ROCHEUSES ET DE LA CALIFORNIE; par Jules marcou. (Exlrait du Bulletin de la Socicle Gcologiqve de France, 2" seric, tome XV, p. 533, seance du 17 Mai 1858.) M. Delesse presente, de la part de M. J. Marcou, un ouvrage relatif a la geologic de I'Amcrique du Nord (Geology of North America) ; il donne ensuite lecture de la note suivantc qui lui a ete adressee par M. Marcou. Zurich, le 20 avril 1858. La Societe goologique do France ayant eu Textrcme obligeance d'inscrer, dans Ics tomes VI. VIII, XI ct XII do la 2' serie de ses Bulletins, la plus grande partic dc mcs observations sur I'Ameriquo du Nord, je vicns aujourd'hui, en lui oll'rant un exemplaire de ma Geology of '^^-nh America, la prier de m'ouvrir encore ses colonnes pour une petite protestation. 1 MARCOU, REPLY TO DANA'S CRITICISMS. 37 i 1 Par suite de circonstances cornplelemcnt indcpendantcs de mon librc arbitre et de ma volonle, el qu'il me scrait penible d'etre ob- lige do rappelcr ici, les deux cahiers do notes geologiques que j'avais ecrits pendant mon exploration des monlagnes Rocbeuses el de la Galifornie , et la plus grande partie de nies collections , m'ont etc en- leves de force , etremis, sans ma participation, enlre les mains d'un nomme William P. Blake , de New-ilaven (Connecticut). Cette per- sonne m'ayanl ecrit de son propre mouvement pour me consulter officieuscmenl sur I'opportunite qu'il y aurait de publier cos deux ca- biers de notes Ids qu'ils claient, je me suis oppose a cette publication en m'appuyant; 1° sur ce que ces notes etaient ecrites au crayon, en abrege, avec beaucoup de signes conventionnels et en langue fran- ^aise; 2** sur ce qu'il y avail des parties a relrancher; 3" sur ce qu'il y avail beaucoup a ajouter pour les rendre comprehensibles ; 4" et enfin sur ce quo, no connaissanl pas lui-memo la route que j'avais parcourue , il no pouvait pas suppleer par sa propre experience a des notes qui no pouvaient etre comprehensibles qua celui memo qui les avail prises. En m6me temps . j'ajoutais : 1° qu'il pouvait publier un rapport en forme de Resume, que j'avais adresse au commandant de notre expedition en juillet 1854; 2° que ma collection elait on bon etat , el ({ue je ne voyais aucune objection a ce qu'il en donnat une description detaillee, aux deux conditions toutefois qu'il previendrait que j'etais etranger a cette description, et qu'il ne ferait pas decrire les fossiles par James Hall, d'Albany. Comme M. Blake me disait dans sa lettre qu'il aurait egard a mcs desirs, et que c'etail seulement pour assurer la publication officielle des resullats geologiques auxquels j'etais parvenu qu'il avail consonli a entreprendre ce travail, j'ai ete fort surpris de voir que, non-seule- menl M. Blake n'a eu egard a aucun de mes desirs, mais bien plus qu'il a fait tout ce qui dependail de lui pour annuler mes observations el nior mes decouvertes ; et je suis aujourd'hui a me demander quels sonl les motifs qui ont pu pousser M. Blake a m'ecrire une lettre, donl il avail evidemment pris la resolution d'avance de fausser tous les lermes. Une premiere publication des resullats principaux des diverses explorations pour retablissement d'un chemin de for entre la vallee du Mississippi el la Galifornie a etc faite a Washington, en 1855, dans le format in-8, avec atlas in-folio. Dans cos rapports se trouvent deux memoires avec ma signature; ce sonl: 1° Resume of a Geological reconnaissance extending from Napoleon at the junction of the Arkansas with the Mississippi , to the pueblo de los Angeles in California ; 2° Geo- logical notes of a survey of the country comprised between Preston, Red river, and El Paso, rio Grande del Norte. Ces deux memoires, qui 38 MARCOU, REPLY TO DANA'S CRITICISMS. ont etc en grando partio publies clans los tomes XI cl XII du Uullelin de la Sock'le (jc'ologique , renfcrmont, avcc dcs details suffisanls pour Ids mellre hors dc doute, lous Ics resultals auxquels j'ai etc conduit par mes rechcrches gcologicjues. Cetle publication , in-8 , a etc li- niilce a un petit nombro d'exemplaires, a peu pres trois cents, et pour I'usagc exclusif du Congres americain. Depuis lors, une seconde publication, dans le format in-4, avec illustrations , etc. , a ete entreprise et so Irouve aujourd'hui dans lo commerce. Le tirage est de li,000 exemplaires, et depuis 185(5, sept gros volumes ont deja paru. Le volunjo II contient le Report near the Ihirly-second Parallel of North Latitude, from the Red river to the nio Grande, par le capitaine Jobn Pope. Dans ce beau travail, Pope cite exclusivement mes notes geologiques sur son voyage , spe- cialcment dans son chapitre VI, au sujet des puits arlcsiens a etablir sur le Llano Estacado. Par une partialite que je suis loin d'attribuer au capilaine Pope, car je sais qu'il a fait tout ce qui lui ctait possible pour empecher injustice dont j'ai etc victime , on a omis complete- ment mes Geological Notes sur cette exploration , et h leur place on trouve un Report on the Geology of the route, par William P. Blake. Dans ce travail, M. Blake ne parle de mes Geological Notes que pour dire que je me suis frompe sur I'existence : 1" du jurassique qui pour lui est du cretace; 2^ du Irias qui pour lui est en parlie du crc'tace', en partie du carbonifcre , et en partie une cpoque geologique inconnuo qu'il nomme avec beaucoup de sagacite gypsum formation, et enfin que ma suggestion , relativem >nt a la possibilite dc pcrcer des puits arlcsiens a de grandes profondeurs, sur le Llano Estacado, est une impossibilitc et une utopie. M. Blake a le talent de remplir une page in-4 avec ce que d'autres ont le defaut de dire dans une seule ligne, et son rapport au capitaine Pope n'est rien autre qu'une compilation deguisee, fortement etendue, et surtout torturee de mes Geological Notes de I'edilion in-8, compilation qu'il n'avoue pas, et qui explique suffisamment le rejet de la publication, dans celte edition in-4, dc mes Geological Noics, Le volume III est exclusivement rempli par les rapports de I'ex- pedilion du capitaine Whipple dont j'ai ete le geologue. J'aime a rappeler ici les relations amicales et d'intimitc qui n'ont cesse d'exister entre Whipple et moi , depuis le jour oii nous nous sommes rcunis sur le pent d'un bateau a vapeur, au fort Smith, et les eirons do loute espcce qu'il a bicn voulu fairc pour m'assurer la publication du rapport geologi(iue complet de noire expedition. Si ses perseve- rantes demarches n'ont pas etc couroimees do succes, du moins il a fait tout ce (jui lui ctait possible, et je sais qu'il ne s'est arrcle que devant une volonte supcrieurc el devant UKjuelle un niilitaire est ! h I >' MARCOU, REPLY TO DANA'S CRITICISMS. 39 ♦■ I loujours oblige de flccliir. Jo ne I'cn remcrcie pas moins de ses nobles efTorls qui so sont continues du rcstc jusqu a la fin de la pub- lication de CO volume III, et qui ont fini par faire inscrer dans la derniere feuille du volume, apres un premier rcjet assez brutal , mon Ucsume de ledition in-8. Je suis iieureux de pouvoir citer ici celte j)hrase d'unc letlrc qu'il m'a adressee dernierement en ni'envoyant ces volumes: «J'esp6re qu'en parcourant ces volumes vous vous sapercevrez que j'ai essayo qu'on ne vous fit pas d'injusticos. Mon » opinion est que vos ennemis, par leur conduite, se sont nui a eux- » memos dans I'eslime du monde scienlifique. » Un tiers du volume III est rempli par le Report on the Geology of the route, rapport divisc en deux jjarties: le n° 1 ou General Report upon the Geological collections, par William P. Blake, et le n° 2 ou Resume and field Notes, par Jules Marcou. Je prie tous les geologues do considercr mon nom comme efface du rapport n° i , ou M. Blakc' s'cn est servi presque a chaque phrase pour nier, annuler ou mutiler mes observations; je ne reconnais rien dans ces dix chapitres par Blake et James Hall comme provenant de moi. Quant au prelendu Itineraire geologique du fort Smith et de Napoleon (Arkansas) au Rio Colorado de Californie, original par Jules Marcou et traduction an- glaise par William P. Blake, qui se Irouve dans la parlie n° 2, je declare que ce document n'est pas de moi , et que M. Blake , en le publiant centre ma volonte expresse, a commis un acte d'indelicatesse Pans exemple jusqu a present en geologie. Je ne parle pas de la carte geologique et du profil executes par M. Blake, d'apres , dit-il, les notes et collections de M. Jules Marcou: les cartes geologiques et le profil que j'ai publics dans dans le Bul- letin de la Svcic'te geologique et dans ma Geology of North America repondent suffisamment a ces productions que je ne considere pas comme serieuses. La seule partie de ce n" 2 et de tout le volume III que je reconnaisse comme elant de moi est le Resume of a Geolog- ical reconnaissance , etc., et les citations que mon ami le capitaine Whipple en fait dans ses divers rapports ; car je rappelle ici avec plaisir que ni Whipple ni Pope n'ont fait usage dans leur rapports des resultats et des redactions de M. Blake: toutes leurs cilations geologiques, mineralogiques el pal^ontologiques sont empruntees c.r- clusivement a mes deux memoires. Je regrette d'etre oblige de presenter une pareille protestation; mais un geologue prati([ue ne j)ossede que sa reputation d'obser- vateur, et mes adversaires ont fait tout ce qui depcndait d'eux pour la miner. J'ai essaye dans les limites de mes forces el de mes faiblos ta- lents de faire mon devoir ; et il est triste , surtout apres avoir comme n 40 MARCOU, REPLY TO DANA'S CRITICISMS moi perdu sa santc par les fatigues de toulcs sorlcs quo j'ai eu h supporter pendant mes voyages, de se voir, iion seulemenl prive do la recompense de la publication officielle do ses rechorches, mais l)ien plus de voir que la personne (pii a eu la mission de les publier s'est appliquoe, avec un courage peu enviable, a torturer, denalurer el nier m6me des observations qui m'ont coute les plus rudes fatigues auxcjuellos un geologuo puissc etre soumis. -^>- ••■•■€±-^'i-?~o —