NA TURE 



621 



THURSDAY, OCTOBER 30, 1879 



STERRY HUNT'S CHEMICAL AND GEO- 

 LOGICAL ESSAYS 

 Chemical and Geological Essays. By Thomas Sterry 

 Hunt, LL.D., F.R.S., &c. Second Edition, revised, 

 with Additions, pp. 489. (London : Triibner and Co., 

 1879-) 



THIS book [contains twenty essays, and a preface, 

 itself an essay, some of which were written as early 

 as 1853, and the others have appeared from time to 

 time, either as original contributions, reviews, or lectures. 

 These literary and scientific efforts are but a small part of 

 Dr. Sterry Hunt's contributions to chemical and dynami- 

 cal geology, but it would appear, from the preface to the 

 first edition, that a selection was made upon a definite 

 idea. The selected essays, as a whole, cover, he con- 

 siders, nearly all the more important points in chemical 

 geology ; and the introduction of one relating to the 

 hypothesis of a cooling globe and of " certain views " of 

 geological dynamics, he considers make together a com- 

 plete scheme of chemical and physical geology. He was 

 disposed to re-write some of the essays, but this was not 

 done, because they seem to the author to have a certain 

 historic value and serve to fix the dates of the origin and 

 development of views, some of which, after meeting for 

 a time with neglect, or with active opposition, are now 

 beginning to find favour in the eyes of the scientific 

 world. Dr. Sterry Hunt states that his views, for which 

 his fellow-workers were not prepared, were subsequently 

 propounded by them as new discoveries or original con- 

 clusions. Five of the papers, moreover, contain, according 

 to the author— writing in 1874 — the germs of a philosophy 

 of chemistry and mineralogy which he hopes one day to 

 develop himself or to see developed by others. 



There is no doubt that, although Dr. Sterry Hunt may 

 be satisfied that his views are correct on all the very 

 numerous subjects he has entertained, there is not a 

 single chapter, one might say a single page in many, 

 which will not meet with very decided opposition on the 

 part of scientific men who are not likely, in after years, 

 to let their hypothetical conversion precede their assump- 

 tion of originality. 



It is difficult in reading this book, full of good factsj 

 but crammed with hypotheses and arguments about 

 priority of thought, to believe that the author is a most 

 genial man, and who is imbued with the true spirit of 

 science. \''ery much of the type of the late David 

 Forbes, he really is the last man whom one would believe 

 would be so dreadfully polemical. Yet he must know 

 that the book can only be appreciated by advanced 

 geologists and chemists who really do care that the dis- 

 coverer of a fact or of a method should have a proper 

 priority, but who do not care about who first put forward 

 certain views on subjects incapable of proof or indulged 

 in scientific guesses before the fact. There is no doubt 

 that with regard to a science like that of geology, men 

 working in different countries at the same subject, arrive 

 simultaneously at the truth or what seems to be true in 

 relation to facts which are common property. A register 

 of opinion, whether expressed at lectures, debates. 

 Vol. XX.— No. 522 



addresses, or published in journals, is clearly impossible. 

 Moreover, there is a great amount of unwritten geology 

 which is common knowledge, but no one thinks it worth 

 while to write it and claim a priority. Hence any one 

 taking up a variety of subjects must suffer from not 

 having his ideas recognised at once and may really be 

 unfairly placed in the background. ! But as there is 

 usually no intention of an evil character, it is unwise to 

 be so very touchy upon priority in hypothesis. Very 

 characteristic of certain zealous minds, is this everlasting 

 harping on who made the discovery of a fleeting hypo- 

 thesis first. 



On looking over these essays we are struck that whilst 

 a controversy with Dana is recorded, the celebrated reply 

 of David Forbes to some of the author's views is not 

 given. And some of the contributions seem to represent 

 former views of the author, and not those which he has 

 since developed. Mallet will feel uncomfortable when he 

 reads how he has been forestalled in his kinetic theory, 

 but it is satisfactory to have the cap put on the right 

 head. Dr. Sterry Hunt has settled volcanicity, and may 

 be thus quoted : " With the contributions of Vose and 

 Mallet, the theory of volcanic action advocated by 

 Keferstein, Herschel, and myself, would seem to be well- 

 nigh complete." This self-commendation will, however, 

 not establish the nonsense of Keferstein, whom the author 

 terms irrational, or the mere passing expression, without 

 confirmatory facts, of Vose, and it will not enable him to 

 stand on the same footing as the philosophic and modest 

 Mallet. 



Should any geologist make ah original suggestion, do 

 not advise him to refrain from publication ; or if it is to 

 be given to the world, let it be done at once. Otherwise 

 Dr. Sterry Hunt may suffer, as he did in the odd matter 

 of limestones, dolomites, and gypsums, and the illustrious 

 but reticent Cordier. On October 28, 1844, a memoir 

 was deposited with the Academy by this geologist. Being 

 in a sealed packet, writes Dr. Sterry Hunt, its contents 

 remained unknown until after his death, when at the 

 request of his '.widow the seal was broken. No money 

 was found and not a codicil, but on February 17, 1862, a 

 remarkable theory transcending everything geological and 

 fully explanatory of the formations of those limestones, 

 came to light. It fell flat, for Dr. Sterry Hunt had 

 maintained similar views, or rather more correct view?, 

 for four years. 



Prof. Ramsay is so hardened a debater that he will not 

 be utterly cast down, it is to be hoped, by having one of 

 his hypotheses snatched from him and placed on the 

 prior brow of our author. It was not for some years that 

 certain views of the author on the formation of dolomites 

 "found recognition^ "When Prof. A. C. Ramsay, by 

 the investigation of the magnesian limestone of the 

 Permian in England, was led to reject as untenable the 

 notion held by Sorby (and by others) that this was once 

 an ordinary limestone of organic origin subsequently 

 impregnated with magnesian carbonate under conditions 

 not explained ; and to conclude that the carbonates of 

 lime and magnesia of which it is composed had been 

 deposited simultaneously by the concentration of solutions 

 due to evaporation in an inland salt lake." To this view 

 as he informs us, he (Ramsay) was led by physical con- 

 siderations and "by the depauperated condition of the 



