16 
NATURE 

[Nov. 3, 1870 

DR. C. W. GUMBEL ON DEEP-SEA MUD 
R. C. W. GUMBEL has recently published an important 
paper, containing an account of some highly interesting inves- 
tigations on Deep-sea Mud. Sir R. Murchison and Professor 
Huxley provided him with a large quantity of mud, taken up from 
the Atlantic at lat. 29° 36'54" N., and long. 18° 19’ 48" W., ata 
depth of about 2,350 fathoms. This he first cleared, by long- 
continued washing, from all sea-salts soluble in water ; then he 
divided it, by filtering, into three parts. In the first Foramini- 
fera and larger organisms predominated ; the second consisted 
of a sediment easily distinguished from the first, fine but heavy ; 
the third was fine and flaky, remaining lightly suspended in 
water, and consisting almost exclusively of Bafhydius, Cocco- 
liths, Coccospheres, together with other organisms of the 
smallest kind (Diatoms, Radiolaria, Sponge-spicules, and a very 
few of the smallest Foraminifera). ‘‘ Dried to about 100° C.” 
says Dr. Giimbel, “10 per cent. of the mud consisted of large 
Foraminifera ; 1°3 per cent. of fine, heavy mud ; and 88:7 per 
cent. of finest Bathyéius mud. The Io per cent, part consisted 
mostly of Glodigerina, which occurred in an astonishing variety 
of forms, from the smallest shapes to figures of a considerable 
size, and could easily be distinguished as G/. dudloides and 
Gl. inflata. Next to these in number were Ordulina universa, 
Cristellaria crepidula, Truncatulina lobatula, Discorbina ro- 
sacea, Rotalia soldanii, R. orbicularis, Putvinulina elegans ; 
P. micheliana, Nonionina umbilicata, Polystomella crispa, Li- 
tuola globigeriniiformis, with many other (but more dismem- 
bered) species. Along with these there were individual speci- 
mens of large Radiolaria, Siliceous Sponge-spicules, Diatoms, 
shells of Ostracoda, torn pieces of sponge and (very rarely) of 
Echinodermata, and fragments of wood, which were very de- 
cidedly distinguishable. It is a question whether the latter was 
a part of the apparatus used in raising the mud. It is in the 
highest degree remarkable that all traces of Bryozoa, corals, and 
firm pieces of more highly-organised animals, were wanting, or 
at least were very rare. 
*« The fine heavier mud which composes the sediment contains, 
for the most part, inorganic elements, with fragments which con- 
sist essentially of carbonate of lime, and which, on being 
dissolved in acids, leave behind cuticular membranes and flakes, 
which partly gave the reaction of conchiolin. It appears to follow 
from this, that these pieces of calcareous matter, although I could 
discover by the microscope no structure in them, are essentially de- 
rived from pounded molluscous shells. The remaining portion, 
which was insoluble in diluted acids, was composed of irregular, 
for the most part lump-shaped, granules of quartz, of clearly re- 
cognisable scales of mica, of dust, and of magnetic iron, which 
could be drawn out by the magnetic needle; of single red, 
blue, and dark green transparent pieces of mineral; and 
of grains of crystal, of a peculiarly dark irridescent brilliance, 
which I can refer only to Labradorite. The polarisation and 
stauroscope apparatus was used for the purpose of determining 
these inorganic ingredients. 
‘© These inorganic elements of the Deep-sea Mud, found at 
such a distance from land, appeared to me worthy of the greatest 
consideration. Their origin can scarcely be ascribed to the 
loosening of the perhaps rocky bottom of the sea, at the point 
where it was sounded. They rather prove that inorganic sub- 
stances, which are derived from the rocky masses of the land by 
mechanical destruction, are conveyed by ocean currents to parts 
of the sea the farthest removed from land. This would render 
easily explicable the admixture of inorganic elements in many 
ocean sediments of ancient times. The explanation of clayey 
or marly interpositions would be made much less difficult. If 
heavy masses of mineral are transported so far, how much more 
easy, would be the transportation of clayey mud which remains 
so lightly suspended in the water! It is almost self-evident 
how quantities of clay or marl may be brought to a stand at 
certain parts of the high sea, marked out beforehand by the 
direction of the ocean currents and the configuration of the 
bottom of the sea, and when the direction of the currents 
changes, may come to form even alternate strata of chalk and 
marl. We thus obtain a mode of explaining the formation of 
many marl deposits, which is at once natural and simple. 
‘©The third portion of the Deep-sea Mud is worthy ina high 
degree cf the interest both of the zoologist and the geologist, 
* whilst it gives scope for many far-reaching theories, If we first 
analyse it microscopically, the substance, which resembles a white 
clay mud, resolves itself, apart from the intermingled minutest 
Globigerine and some few other Foraminifera, into a heap of 

little granules, the so-called Coccoliths (Discoliths and Cyatho- 
liths), and of granulous flaky little lumps, the so-called Bathybius, 
compared with which all other ingredients, —the siliceous-shelled 
Diatoms, and Radio/aria, and also perhaps the so-called Cocco- 
spheres and other small organic bodies excepted,—are of very 
secondary importance. 
«The part of the Deep-sea Mud which is made up of Diatoms 
and Radiolaria, together with Sponge spicules, is of especial 
importance, because it consists to no inconsiderable extent of 
silica, and appears to be the source from which the siliceous ~ 
concretions in many chalk formations have drawn their materials. 
That these form no inconsiderable part of the composition ot — 
Deep-sea Mud may be clearly seen by removing the chalk by 
means of acids, and the organic matter by heat or by sulphuric 
acid. There then become visible the most beautiful forms of 
Diatoms, with especial frequency, Gallionelle, Coscinodisct, 
and Navicule, more rarely Actinocyoli, Pleurosigma, Rhabdo- 
nema, Grammatophora, and others, of which many, concealed in 
the network of granulous Bathybius masses, were formerly 
scarcely visible. Many forms of extremely beautiful Radiolaria 
were also seen, together with simple Sponge-spicules. Lastly, 
we remark some slight fragments of plants, which may belong 
to the species of Saprolegnza and Protoccus.” ; 
Speaking of the Coccoliths and the Bathybius, Dr. Giimbel 
says he is in a position to confirm the conclusions of Profs. Hux- 
ley, Carpenter, and Haeckel with respect to their organic nature, 
In a note he adds, ‘‘I have already stated my opinion on this 
subject (NATURE, April 1870) but must here rectify a mistake 
in that communication, namely, that the organic matter of the 
Coccoliths yields with iodine, blue, therefore cellulose, reaction. 
This colouring, I am now conyinced, is not the consequence of 
chemical action, but a phenomenon of refracted light, such as occurs 
with small thin leaves or membranes when greatly magnified.” 
After detailing some observations, microscopic and chemical, on 
Bathybius and Coccoliths, Dr. Giimbel proceeds to speak of the fur- 
ther distribution of the latter. ‘‘First,”” he says, ‘‘on looking 
through the Algze, Hydrozoa, Polyps, Corals, &c., which occur on 
shallow sea-coasts, such as may easily be met with in every botani- 
caland Zoological collection, I succeeded in numerous instances In 
finding Coccoliths in the places where they had grown, and not 
seldom, Suthybius at the same time. These investigations were ex- 
tended to points on the coasts of almost allseas, and now, instead, 
of the statement lately made that the organisms in question thrive 
only at a depth of 5,000 feet, I am in a position to assert on a provi 
fact, that Coccoliths (Bathybius) occur in all seas and at all depths. 
This deprives these minute bodies of a certain air of wonder with 
which they were surrounded, as the offspring of the profoundest 
and most secret depths of the ocean ; but by their astonishingly 
wide distribution and their vast numbers, which stamp them as 
one of the most essential members of rock-forming substances, 
they gain infinitely in scientific interest.” 
Dr. Giimbel maintains that the distribution of Coccoliths in 
time is not less remarkable than the present distribution in 
space. There is proof, he says, that they are to be found in 
“almost all sedimentary formations.” Referring to their dis- 
tribution in various formations, he says :—‘‘ But besides the 
Coccoliths another ingredient demands attention. In the case of 
the chalk of Meudon, rich in Coccoliths, if the carbonate of lime 
be removed by means of diluted acids, there remains a flaky and 
cuticular residue, in which are found thin, transparent flakes, full of 
the smallest granules, and resembling Lathybiusin a high degree. 
firmly establishes their relationship with the Bathyérus. The 
imperishableness of this substance is indeed very remarkable.” 
After stating that the Coecoliths occur in all the soft marls and 
limestones of the Jurassic and Liassic formations—‘*The Mus- 
chelkalk,” continues Dr, Giimbel, ‘‘appeared for a long time to 
be proof against every experiment. Every specimen of marl 
which I examined was apparently free from Coccoliths. At last 
I had the good fortune to discover traces of them in a somewhat 
impure piece of rock-salt from Wilhelmsgliick. Even here they 
show themselves extremely sparingly, but in the company of 
flakes, which are not unlike Sethydius. To the present time I 
have in vain examined the similar rock-salts of Berchtesgaden 
and Stessfurt ; and as yet indications of Coccoliths in the Permian 
formation and the Coal-measures are wanting. On the other 
hand, the soft marls of the mountain limestone of Regnitzlosau, 
the soft marls of the Conodont strata of the Baltic provinces, 
the Trenton marl of New York, and even the siliceous limestone 
of the Potsdam sandstone, contain some traces, although te an 
extremely small extent, ’ 

This places their organic nature beyond question, and — 
i 
3 
; 
a ee 
a 
erg Wn 
ay ee ee ee ae 
él 
ave 
ern ese! SS 
Psaticas 
tb in 
5‘ 
‘ 

