274 NINTH ANNUAL REPORT OF 



a fact almost too general and simple to be much dwelt upon. It being once 

 known, as it is, to everybody, the special arrangement of the numerous 

 subordinate members becomes the object of investigation, and it is this 

 object we have here in view. 



In this investigation the question is not only whether certain groups 

 or chains of mountains are really connected or separated, bat what 

 other relations may exist between them, relations that may be of high 

 interest to the geologist and meteorologist, or to those who are studying 

 the laws of the distribution and diversity of vegetable, animal, and 

 human life. Mountains, though separated by intervening space, may 

 be the pinxlactions of simultaneous and connected geological processes, 

 or, by taking corresponding situations in reference to the whole geo- 

 graphical structure of their respective regions, may form corresponding 

 parts in the system of natural circumstances and conditions, so that 

 one may be said to be the equivalent of the other in one or the other of 

 the different series of causes and effects which constitute the great 

 organism of nature. Thus we may not only ask whether the Rocky 

 Mountains are connected with the Sierra Madre or not, but we may, if 

 the latter be tlie case, put the question whether the one must not be 

 considered, at least, as the equivalent of the other. This question, in- 

 deed, has been raised by the geologists of this country in respect to 

 the different chains of our own system of mountains. It has become 

 an interesting question of geology and ph3^sical geography, whether the 

 peninsular chain of Lower California is the southern equivalent of the 

 Sierra Nevada, or is that of our coast range, and whether the so-called 

 San Bernardino chain is corresponding to any of the three, or has its 

 own independent character and existence. 



Since Elie de Beaumont has drawn the attention of geologists to 

 certain relations which appear to exist beiween the bearings of" moun- 

 tain chains and the geological periods of their respective upheavals, it 

 has been asserted that such questions should be decided ; and that the 

 classifications and nomenclature of geography should be regulated by 

 the facts which constitute geological character, and not by those of mere 

 outward form. But it is easy to shovv^ that, by subjecting the whole 

 matter to the domination of a mere scientific principle, we yield to the 

 claims of one science at the cost of the equally just claims of another, 

 as well as of every~day utility. Thus, for example, it is a well estab- 

 lished fact of geology, that different sections of the Alps are to be re- 

 ferred to very different geological epochs, while each of these sections 

 has its geological equivalents in certain more or less distant parts of 

 the world. Still it is in the interest of climatology and of the study of 

 the distribution of plants and animals, as it is in that of common life 

 and of human history, to adhere to the old and natural way of viewing 

 and naming, by which the Alps are considered as one mountain chain, 

 which has nothing to do with certain mountains or hills in Spain, in 

 Scandinavia, and in Greece. It is an ecjually well established fact, 

 that the hills in the south of England and a certain section of the 

 Caucasus, that the Thuringian forest in Germany and certain moun- 

 tains in Greece, that one section of the Pyrenees and a certain section 

 of the Alps, are to be referred respectively to the same geological 

 periods. Still no sensible man, unless he is considering the matter 



