TRANSACTIONS OF SECTION D. 721 



a hope tliat he should convert them to his own -views before he had finished, and 

 when he (Professor Seeley) turned to the end of the address he found that Dr. Hick- 

 sons own view was that he was an adherent of the views of Dr. Murray. If it was 

 possible for the subject to have been stated in so impartial a manner as it appeared 

 to have heen by Dr. Hickson, and for Dr. Hickson to be an adherent of the views 

 of Dr. Murray, he (Professor Seeley) would like Dr. Hickson, in his reply, to lay 

 before them the evidence which so weighed with him as to convince him of the truth 

 of Dr. MuiTay"s views rather than the views of Mr. Darwin. "When he remembered 

 the circumstances under whicli Mr. Darwin commenced the study of coral reefs he 

 found there was one very remarkable determining influence which gave Mr. Darwin 

 very exceptional opportunities for forming views upon this subject. Mr. Darwin told 

 them that he had been spending the previous autumn in North Wales, studying 

 the processes of the upheaval and depression of the earth, and he had told them ho w on 

 touching upon every shore he found records of the changes in progress all oyer the 

 surface of the globe. Therefore when he came to study the problems of the distribu- 

 tion of life on the surface of the earth at the present time he was not attacking any 

 problem which had previously engaged his attention, but judging whether they were 

 true. And the conclusion he' arrived at was that there was no link wanting in the 

 ■evidence to unite the past methods of bringing coral reefs into existence and those 

 which govern their distribution at the present day. The great merit, as it seemed 

 to those who, like himself, had been occupied in expounding the views of Mr. 

 Darwin was that as new knowledge had come before them from various researches 

 they had learnt prophecies of the upheaval of fringing reefs which were unknown 

 in detail to Mr. Darwin ; and as Semper made known his views they learnt that 

 there was an object of exceptional modification to the views which Mr. Darwin put 

 forward, which were in no way antagonistic to those views but were a fitting 

 illustration of the general truth of the views of Mr. Darwin — truth which admitted 

 of exceptional conditions of modification where the requisite conditions were pre- 

 sent. When these views came to be stated again, appealing to mankind, they said 

 boldly, 'We do not regard this as a novelty or revelation, or as a new basis of 

 science to be honoured.' And why ? Because it did not do for them what Mr. 

 Darwin's view had done — given us the method of research and connected with the 

 past geology of the earth the phenomena ofthe present day. All we could see in these 

 views were exceptional conditions of coral growth, which could be harmonised with 

 the views which Mr. Darwin had already formulated. When the objection is 

 raised that IMr. Darwin had not fully stated this and various facts brought before 

 ws with the view of contesting what is, perhaps, found in popular text-books as an 

 exposition of the views of Mr. Darwin, it was very much hke fighting a shadow 

 and views which were in existence long before the views which Mr. Murray 

 brought before them. It is stated that no coral reef is known which is more than 

 ti5 faAoms in thickness. Probably no geologist knew of any reef of more than 

 that thickness, and he knew the conditions of the growth of coral were not favour- 

 able to extreme thickness, for it was battered up by the waves and the fragments 

 scattered about, so that the continuity of coral growth upwards was hindered. 

 Therefore under these and various other circumstances which come under practi- 

 cal observation in the study of the geological structure of our country and make 

 us acquainted with the different distribution of coral reefs he failed to see anything 

 in the arguments brought before them at present which would lead them to see in 

 the new views brought forward by Mr. Murray evidence which would lead them 

 to overthrow those given by Mr. Darwin. 



Mr. Haemer observed that Professor Hicltson in criticising the origin of 

 lagoons assumed that the rim of the coral would grow more actively than the 

 centre. Was that really the case ? They could understand that the rim of the 

 atoll would cut oS" supplies of food, and if there were any great differences notice- 

 able in submerged atolls they could understand that the outside conditions of 

 growth were more favourable than those on the inside. If, however, they had a 

 perfectly flat table-land would there be any difference — would not the coral in the 

 cent re be able to get as much oxygen and food as that at the edge ? The opponents 

 of Mr. Darwin were ready to admit any amount of elevation, whilst they were not 

 18S8. 3 A 



