﻿210 
  ANNUAL 
  EEPOKT 
  SMITHSONIAN 
  INSTITUTION, 
  192 
  9 
  

  

  Prior 
  to 
  the 
  nineteenth 
  century 
  geological 
  thought 
  was 
  of 
  the 
  

   catastrophic 
  school. 
  It 
  was 
  held 
  that 
  natural 
  forces 
  were 
  more 
  active 
  

   and 
  powerful 
  in 
  past 
  geological 
  ages 
  than 
  they 
  now 
  are; 
  that 
  great 
  

   convulsions 
  of 
  Nature 
  had 
  riven 
  the 
  crust 
  asunder 
  into 
  valleys 
  and 
  

   elevated 
  other 
  portions 
  into 
  mountains. 
  By 
  the 
  middle 
  of 
  the 
  nine- 
  

   teenth 
  century 
  the 
  opposte, 
  or 
  uniformitarian 
  school 
  of 
  thought 
  had 
  

   achieved 
  the 
  ascendency, 
  largely 
  through 
  the 
  influence 
  of 
  the 
  geologist 
  

   Lyell. 
  On 
  this 
  view 
  it 
  was 
  held 
  that 
  geological 
  processes 
  had 
  never 
  

   differed 
  seriously 
  from 
  those 
  of 
  the 
  present 
  day. 
  As 
  a 
  consequence 
  of 
  

   this 
  doctrine 
  an 
  immense 
  antiquity 
  was 
  required 
  for 
  the 
  earliest 
  

   geological 
  strata, 
  and 
  with 
  this 
  almost 
  unlimited 
  time 
  at 
  their 
  disposal 
  

   biologists 
  felt 
  unhampered. 
  

  

  Then 
  came 
  Kelvin's 
  bombshell 
  . 
  Protest 
  and 
  appeal 
  were 
  not 
  lack- 
  

   ing, 
  but 
  Kelvin 
  was 
  inexorable. 
  Physics, 
  he 
  said, 
  could 
  grant 
  no 
  

   more, 
  and 
  physics 
  held 
  the 
  power 
  of 
  the 
  purse 
  of 
  time. 
  

  

  The 
  widespread 
  and 
  long-continued 
  interest 
  in 
  this 
  controversy 
  is 
  

   evidenced 
  by 
  the 
  many 
  letters 
  published 
  on 
  the 
  subject 
  in 
  "Nature" 
  

   from 
  January 
  to 
  April, 
  1895. 
  As 
  proof 
  of 
  the 
  fact 
  that 
  Kelvin 
  did 
  

   not 
  stand 
  alone 
  in 
  this 
  matter 
  it 
  is 
  of 
  interest 
  to 
  note 
  that 
  not 
  a 
  single 
  

   physicist 
  failed 
  to 
  support 
  him 
  in 
  theory, 
  though 
  there 
  was 
  a 
  general 
  

   feeling 
  tjaat 
  perhaps 
  his 
  limits 
  might 
  be 
  widened 
  somewhat. 
  The 
  

   discussion 
  was 
  finally 
  summed 
  up 
  by 
  its 
  initiator. 
  Prof. 
  John 
  Perry, 
  

   who 
  expressed 
  the 
  opinion 
  that 
  the 
  upper 
  limit 
  assigned 
  by 
  Kelvin 
  

   might 
  perhaps 
  be 
  multiplied 
  by 
  four. 
  But 
  this 
  concession 
  brought 
  

   about 
  no 
  rapprochement. 
  The 
  two 
  sides 
  were 
  not 
  near 
  enough 
  to 
  

   dicker. 
  

  

  A 
  few 
  years 
  later 
  the 
  deadlock 
  was 
  finally 
  resolved 
  by 
  the 
  discovery 
  

   of 
  radioactivity. 
  This 
  new 
  and 
  totally 
  unexpected 
  source 
  of 
  terrestrial 
  

   heat 
  nullified 
  Kelvin's 
  fundamental 
  postulate, 
  and 
  allowed 
  as 
  much 
  

   time 
  as 
  the 
  most 
  extreme 
  views 
  could 
  require. 
  

  

  Rightly 
  or 
  wrongly, 
  this 
  celebrated 
  case 
  had 
  an 
  unfortunate 
  effect 
  

   upon 
  interscientific 
  relations. 
  The 
  biologists 
  in 
  particular 
  felt 
  that 
  

   the 
  character 
  of 
  their 
  problems 
  and 
  the 
  evidence 
  for 
  their 
  conclusions 
  

   were 
  not 
  appreciated 
  by 
  the 
  physicists. 
  The 
  impression 
  was 
  gained 
  

   that 
  physics 
  was 
  for 
  some 
  reason 
  incompetent 
  to 
  treat 
  of 
  biological 
  

   questions, 
  and 
  that 
  the 
  life 
  sciences 
  required 
  for 
  their 
  complete 
  discus- 
  

   sion 
  and 
  development 
  something 
  that 
  was 
  not 
  and 
  could 
  not 
  be 
  found 
  

   in 
  physical 
  theory. 
  It 
  may 
  scarcely 
  be 
  doubted, 
  I 
  think, 
  that 
  this 
  

   impression 
  of 
  the 
  inadequacy 
  of 
  physics 
  went 
  far 
  toward 
  strengthening 
  

   and 
  prolonging 
  the 
  life 
  of 
  the 
  vitalistic 
  hypothesis. 
  

  

  But, 
  to 
  be 
  fair, 
  we 
  must 
  recognize 
  that 
  the 
  vitalism 
  of 
  to-day 
  is 
  not 
  

   that 
  of 
  a 
  century 
  ago. 
  To 
  use 
  a 
  term 
  borrowed 
  from 
  mineralogy, 
  

   it 
  is 
  but 
  a 
  pseudomorph 
  of 
  its 
  predecessor, 
  cast 
  in 
  the 
  mold 
  of 
  the 
  

   older 
  form 
  and 
  simulating 
  its 
  outward 
  shape, 
  but 
  inwardly 
  of 
  a 
  differ- 
  

   ent 
  composition. 
  The 
  neovitalist 
  of 
  to-day 
  disclaims 
  utterly 
  anything 
  

  

  