THE RECORD OF THE ROCKS 



as they have been traced their succession is the same. When 

 we come to a gap (say the EngHsh Channel) and when we 

 find that the succession of fossils on the other side is the 

 same, must we not suppose that the succession of the rocks 

 (say in France) is the same as in England? 



In this way, step by step, it has been possible to pass from 

 one country to another, until the stratified rocks of the whole 

 world have been correlated or linked up just as the succes- 

 sion of Emperors in China can be correlated with the Kings 

 of England. There are difficulties, no doubt, owing to large 

 gaps like the Pacific Ocean, or to the readily intelligible fact 

 that some animals live in the sea and others on land or in 

 fresh water; also to the fact that there are differences 

 between the inhabitants of arctic and tropical climates. But, 

 so long as attention is limited to fossils of similar nature, 

 these difficulties rarely obtrude. One finds, for example, in 

 the State of New York and in Quebec a clear succession of 

 fossils precisely comparable to the succession in Great 

 Britain. 



It is perfectly true that there are places where a rock (A) 

 overlying another (B) contains fossils that elsewhere are 

 found to lie below B. But we shall generally find that such 

 places show signs of disturbance of the rocks. If we admit 

 (as everyone does) that the fossils found in the Alps, the 

 Rockies, and the Himalayas are the remains of sea-animals, 

 then we recognize that these mountain chains must have been 

 raised from the sea-floor by forces so enormous that they 

 could not help crushing, crumpling, and overturning the 

 rocks. There are plenty of obvious evidences that this has 

 happened, and it may well have happened in places where 

 the signs are not so obvious. Tremendous though these 

 movements seem by our pygmy human standards of com- 

 parison, it is well to remember that the greatest ups and 



tl07] 



