42 



NATURE 



[November io, 1910 



From the general trend of his first article (Nature, 

 October 6) I gathered that the reviewer was an advocate 

 of the " solution " theory of Sir John Murray, and by 

 carefully reading his second contribution (October 27) I 

 have not entirely dispelled this impression. Yet he says, 

 "I do not regard the lagoon in an atoll, which was 

 formed, as Darwin suggested, by subsidence, as covering 

 a reef at all." 



This would seem to suggest a belief in Darwin's theory, 

 and, if it is the case that the reviewer upholds this theory 

 (as well as the opposed one of " solution "), it may be 

 well to point out that I too would not regard the lagoon 

 of an atoll, formed by subsidence, as covering a reef. I 

 should not have imagined it probable that anyone would 

 so regard a lagoon were it formed in such a manner. 

 The essential difference between such a view and the 

 one that I have attempted to uphold is that I do not regard 

 the lagoon as being formed by subsidence at all ; but I 

 do look on the lagoon as being a " slightly submerged 

 reef " having a raised rim upon which islets are developed. 

 Does the reviewer genuinely regard the lagoon as being 

 formed by subsidence? If he does, why does he also 

 plead the opposed theory of solution, and appeal to the 

 elevated islands of Fiji? If he does not, why does he 

 urge the statement as an argument against my views? 



I am glad to see that he is prepared to admit that the 

 various well-known phases of development of atoll-shaped 

 reefs are " indirect evidence " of the truth of what I have 

 '"P.intained ; but the Funafuti bore, he thinks, does not 

 support it. The reviewer states that he does not think 

 "the borings in the lagoon at -Funafuti suggest a reef 

 such as surrounds a lagoon." I should not have expected 

 them to have suggested a reef such as surrounds a lagoon, 

 for that reef is a consolidated and specialised "breccia 

 platform." What might be expected is that such a bore 

 would show the characters of a submerged reef — the open 

 coral bankT— /);m5 the lagoon accumulations added since the 

 completion of the atoll. 



When such a successful bore is driven we may look for 

 such appearances ; but it is surely within the knowledge 

 of the reviewer that the only bore at Funafuti which met 

 with any , success was not situated iii the lagoon. The 

 lagoon bore ("bore L ") penetrated only 144 feet, and then 

 failed; the only successful bore (on the results of which 

 alone any safe argument may be based) was situated on 

 the seaward reef, far removed from the lagoon. The 

 successful bore (" main bore "), which reached a depth of 

 1 1 14 feet, was driven on the extreme windward edge of a 

 large atoll reef. In such a situation one would confidentlv 

 expect the bore to penetrate the talus slope of the out- 

 wardly growing reef, and, from the description of the 

 core obtained, it would appear that this expectation was 

 realised. The Funafuti "main bore" tells little of the 

 development of atolls save that they grow to windward 

 on their own talus slopes — a fact hardly requiring a 

 laborious boring for its acceptance. 



The " L bore " can support no particular theory by 

 reason of its very incompleteness ; but such evidence as it 

 does afford in no way contradicts, but rather goes to 

 support, the supposition that it penetrated the lagoon 

 debris of a submerged reef. 



Whether the reviewer regards the Funafuti boring as 

 evidence supporting Darwin's theory of subsidence or Sir 

 John Murray's theory of solution I cannot quite deter- 

 mine ; but he next defends the solution theory in the case 

 of the Fijian Islands. He says that these islands have 

 reefs " which superficially appear to be of the ordinary 

 coral-reef type. Such reefs cannot have existed when the 

 islands were first elevated, and it seems to me that 

 .'\gassiz's photographs show that high islands do crumble 

 to pieces within the calm of encircling barrier reefs." I 

 own that I fail to follow this argument, for, granting that 

 the reef is new since the island was elevated, what proof 

 — or what probability — is there that the coast erosion was 

 not present before the development of the reef, when the 

 same condition is seen quite apart from reefs, or any 

 other coral structures, all over the world? 



The problem of the formation of coral structures (fring- 

 ing reefs, barrier reefs, open reefs, atoll-shaped reefs, and 

 atolls) is not, I think, to be solved bv appeals to a multi- 

 tude of opposed theories, and no critic's position is likely 



to gain strength by a series of fallacious arguments based 

 alternately on the theory of subsidence, the theory oi 

 solution, and the results of the Funafuti bore. 



F. Wood-Jones. 

 -St. Thomas's Hospital Medical School. 



NO. 2 141, VOL. 85] 



-As a reviewer I would point out that I do not desire 

 to uphold any theory, but merely to show what is good 

 and what is bad in the book which I am reviewing, what 

 facts are new, how far these and other facts support any 

 theories, &c. An essay on the duties of a reviewer might 

 be a suitable suggestion to the Editor of Nature, but 

 obviously I am not the author to present such an article. 



In the first paragraph of Mr. Wood-Jones's letter of 

 October 27 I am practically accused of being an 

 "anonymous destructive . critic " of, I suppose, the con- 

 structions erected by the facts brought together by Mr. 

 Wood-Jones, some of them new and some old. I regard r 

 some of the bricks of his building as faulty, and I scarcely 

 think there are enough bricks with which to .complete the 

 building. I intended to indicate in my review that. I 

 considered that science had gaine by the attempt to 

 build, and I desired indirectly to indicate some of the 

 bricks which I. thought future workers should attempt to 

 collect. I do not believe any research.?r on the coral-reef 

 problem will consider my review as in any way unfair if 

 he regards (as I did) Mr. Wood-Jones's book as a con- 

 tribution to science. . 



I. shall after this .lettc not continue this correspondence, 

 not caring for Mr. VV.od-Jones's style of writing. I 

 would, however, make .lyself clear on two points. Mr. 

 \\'ood-Jones admits that he assumes the lagoon of an 

 atoll to be a slightly submerged reef.' I point out that 

 the nature of the material underlying the lagoons of 

 atolls .is doubtful. I appeal to the lagoon boring at 

 Funafuti as giving the most valuable facts we have as to 

 its nature. ■ Do these facts, the best known geographical 

 facts, support the theory of a slightly submerged reef, such 

 as is supposed to exist at Cocos-Keeling? Down to 

 27 fathoms the first Funafuti lagoon boring passed through 

 lagoon debris, and from that depth to 41 fathoms there 

 occurred some firmly compacted masses ">f coral rock. Irr. 

 the second boring,, which was carried to nearly 36 fathoms, 

 a similar section was obtained. I do not consider that 

 these two borings are sufficient to justify ; Mr. Wood- 

 Jones's assumption, and I did not consider that the 

 evidence given as to Cocos-Keeling lagoon justifies it. I 

 quite fail to remember any description ■ of the. material 

 under the Cocos-Keeling lagoon such as; would suggest 

 the open, coral bank which is mentioned in Mr. W'ood- 

 Jones's letter,- while its- shallowness made it a peculiarly 

 favourable place for investigation. 



The fringing reefs round the high limestone islands ia 

 Fiji I certainly am inclined to . regard as platforms left 

 at low tide-level when those islands were washed away. 

 In this sense they are new. They formed part of the 

 bases of the islands when they were first elevated. 

 Possibly the edges of these platforms have extended sea- 

 ward since the land Was removed by solution, and, still 

 more important, by the erosion of the numerous small 

 particles carried in the swirling watei-s. I consider these] 

 views are amply supported by published evidence. High 

 limestone islands are also being washed away within 

 barrier reefs, and I think it is a fair inference frorrn 

 the evidence that many of these barrier reefs were oncei 

 similar shelves cut out from the land, or, to put it another) 

 way, le*^*. behind when the land was removed. 



The Reviewer. 



i 



f 



Note on Winter Whitening in Mammals. 



I HAVE just seen a letter in N.ature of March 24 byl 

 Miss I. B. J. SoIIas, in which, commenting on Mr.j 

 Mudge's observations, it is suggested that the yellow bodyi 

 produced artificially by Mr. Mudge in the fur of the albinorj 

 rat is a substance similar to the yellow pigment of the! 

 stoat's winter coat, and therefore probably represents a| 

 stage in the reduction of the pigment to the condition in^ 

 which it exists in the white hairs. 



I had previously read Mr. Mudge's observations withj 

 great interest, and had suggested to him that they wou|^ 

 throw light on the hitherto unexplained yellow tints inl 



