62 



NATURE 



\Nov. 27, 1873 



I have to thank you for sending me your paper on the 

 Elevation of Mountains, which I have read with great interest. 

 You and Mr. Mallet have done great service to geology by 

 exploding the old-fashioned idea of cavities existing in the 

 interior of the earth. I quite agree with you that a cooling 

 earth must give rise to great pressure in the outer consolidated 

 layers, and that this pressure must crush the rocks composing 

 it ; but I cannot think that this crusliing is the cause of the ele- 

 vation of mountains. My reasons for disagreeing with you are 

 the following : — 



1. The pressure from a shrinking globe must be uniform, and 

 the lines of least resistance, once chosen, should remain always 

 the same, and the elevation should be continuous. All minor 

 dift'erenceb would be insignificant in comparison with the flatter 

 arch at the poles. These areas, therefore, would subside, and 

 mountain chains should have had from the first an east and west 

 direction. I see no provision for changing the localities of 

 movement. 



2. Where deposition was going on the rocks would be heating 

 and no contraction could occur below them. But mountain 

 chains have been always formed where the deposits were the 

 heaviest, and where, therefore, uplifting would not be likely to 

 occur. 



3. All mountain chains are not formed on the same system, 

 but can be divided into two groups, as I have pointed out in my 

 lecture on this subject. 



4. Whether a glacial epoch has ever extended over the whole 

 earth or not, it is certain that the northern parts of America and 

 Europe are much warmer now than they were in the Pleistocene 

 period, consequently the rocks under them could not have con- 

 tracted, and yet we know that extensive movements are even 

 now going on in this area. 



5. In order to produce a strain on the surface, the lower con- 

 tracting rocks must be solid, consequently there would be nothing 

 to support a large anticlinil, and no rocks to pass into the liquid 

 state ; the result would be a general small crumpling all along 

 the surface. The relief also to the compression of the upper 

 rocks could not be obtained by a single rising at a point, or along 

 a line, without a horizontal movement of one bed over another, 

 which appears to me to be impossible. Consequently I do not 

 think that the shrinking could produce the observed effects, more 

 especially as the Himalayas, &c. are of tertiary age, and the con- 

 traction of the globe, since the cretaceous period, cannot have 

 been very great. These remarks ajjply also to Prof. .Shaler's 

 theory (Proc. Bost. Soc. Nat. Hist. 1S66). Mr. Medlicott's sec- 

 tion of the Himalayas is, to my mind, physically impossible. It 

 is inconceivable that the beds could be engineered into the 

 po-itions in which he has placed them. 



6. The theory does not account for the numerous minor oscil- 

 lations of level that coal measures often prove to have taken place. 



7. The theory makes no provision for tension in the rocks. 

 But it is a fact not sufficiently dwelt upon by geologists, that 

 faults just as surely prove tension in rocks as contortions prove 

 compression. 



I have also a few objections to your theory of Volcanoes, and 

 also to that of Mr. Mallet. They are as follows : — 



1. The density of the crust has been shown by General Sabine 

 to increase in volcanic regions, while, by your theory, it should 

 decrease. Mr. Mallet's theory would account for this, as also 

 would the one proposed in my lecture. 



2. To cause a volcano the heat must go to the water, for the 

 water cannot go to the heated rock, as your theory would require. 



3. Volcanoes are not found in contorted countries, or where 

 great lateral piessure has existed. In the older volcanic districts 

 (e.g. North ^Vales) the eruptions occurred before the folding of 

 the strata. This Is also a strong point against Mr. Mallet's 

 theory. 



4. By Mr. Mallet's theory the crushing must be very sudden, 

 or the heat would be conducted away, and as each eruption 

 would require a fresh accession of heat, it ought to be preceded 

 by elevation or subsidence on a large scale. The earthquakes 

 that precede eruptions are just as likely to be effects as causes. 



5. Faults show no heating where considerable crushing has 

 taken place. 



Such are the objections that occur to me, but, after .all, we 

 cannot well burke the question as to the state of the interior of 

 the earth, and I must confess that the " Viscidists " appear to me 

 to have a better position than the " Rigidists." 



Mr. Hopkins' argument, drawn from precession and nutation, 

 has proved untenable, and the only stronghold that the "Rigi- 

 dists" now retain is the absence-of-internal-tide argument of Sir 



W. Thomson. This has not yet been assaulted, but it probably 

 has a weak point somewhere, for its author has allowed that the 

 interior of the earth is probably "at, or very nearly at, the proper 

 melting temperature for the pressure at each depth," which seems 

 hardly consistent with its being "more rigid than glass." On 

 the other hand, the "Viscidists " have a very strong point in the 

 fact that faults are known with throws of several thousand feet 

 (which apparently must penetrate into some yielding material), 

 as well as some minor positions, such as the supposed efl^ect of 

 the moon on causing earthquakes, the composition of volcanic 

 rocks (which contain more alkali than could be obtained by 

 merely melting sedimentary rocks), and the mode of occurrence 

 of granitic rocks, none of which have been seriously attacked by 

 the " Rigidists." 



At this distance 1 cannot take part in a discussion, as I must 

 always be five months behind hand, but if you think that a pre- 

 liminary skirmish in the pages of Nature would do good, 

 although it did not bring on a decisive battle, you are quite wel- 

 come to publish this letter. F. W. HuTTON 



Wellington, N. Z., July 21 



P.S. — At the time of writing my paper on Elevation and Sub- 

 sidence [Phil. Jl/a^'. Dec. '72), I was not aware that Mr. Scrope 

 had been the first to suggest* the theory there developed, or I 

 should certainly have mentioned his name, and not proposed to 

 call the theory after Herschel -and Babbage. I feel that I owe 

 Mr. Scrope some apology for my inadvertence. 



Deep-Sea Sounding and Deep-Sea Thermometers 



We have again to claim your indulgence for occupying space 

 for a few comments on Mr. Casella's reply to our letter. 



It is not true that we abstained from drawing attention during 

 the lifetime of Dr. Miller to the fact that he had plagiarised our 

 invention ; on the contrary, we wrote to Dr. Miller as soon as 

 we were told that he had read a paper before the Royal Society 

 on his supposed invention, and we have before us Dr. Miller's 

 answer, dated Nov. 23, 1S69, wherein he writes : 



" I am sorry if I have inadvertently done anything which may 

 fairly be considered an injustice to you in respect to the deep-sea 

 thermometer," &c. 



We believe Dr. Miller did not know of our thermometer, 

 but Mr. Casella did, having had one or more in his possession 

 years previously, and as a fact our thermometer v/as well 

 known in the trade ; therefore he as the workman employed by Dr. 

 Miller ought to have acquainted that gentleman with the fact. It 

 is most likely that we should not have taken any further notice had 

 the thermometer retained the modest title given to it by Dr. 

 Miller, viz. the " Millcr-pittern." This, however, did not suit 

 Mr. Casella. Mr. Miller died — "morstuavitamea," — and forth- 

 with the thermometer is styled the Miller-Casella, then by a little 

 "progressive development," the instrument is brought out at 

 the British Association as the Casella-Miller, and to day we have 

 it in Mr. Casella's letter as " mv thermometer." 



On refeieiice to the Royal Society's Proceedings, vol. xvii. 

 p. 4S2, we find no mention of Mr. Casella's name except as the 

 workman who took Dr. Miller's instructions, and we have yet to 

 learn what right a workman has to appropriate to himself an 

 instrument made for Dr. Miller, or any other customer, sup- 

 posing, even for argument's sake, that we had no priority in its 

 invention. 



Mr. Casella asks " What has Negretti and Zambra's thermo- 

 meter done that it should be known ? " 



In the first place it served him as a pattern, it showed him 

 how the best deep-sea therm >meter was constructed, and how 1 



to make others on the same principle ; and we contend that had 

 our instruments been placed in the hands of skilful, careful, and 

 trained observers, such as are now engaged in the Chatknger 

 Expedition, they would have given results equal to those now 

 obtained with the instruments supplied by Mr. Casella, and ob- 

 viously so, their principle being precisely the same. 



Mr. Casella talks about our thermometers having failed. Can 

 Mr. Casella point out where are recorded any of the failures ? 

 Was Mr. Casella able to make them fail when he tried by placing 

 one of them in his hydraulic press in the presence of gentlemen 

 connected with the Meteorological Oflice? But this is not the 

 point at issue, the sole question is, are the thermometers supplied 

 to the expedition the .same in principle as ours, or are they not ? 



Doubtless it would be much more agreeable to Mr. Casella ' 

 that these questions should be decided by himself in private, 

 hence his uivitation to your readers " to go to his establishment 

 * " Volcanoes," 1st ed. 1826, p. 30. 



