156 T. 0. Chamberlin — Relations of Geology to Physiography. 



Now, the study of the earth may assume the phase which we 

 term geography, or the phase which we term geology, or the 

 intermediate phase which we are coming to designate phj'-siog- 

 raphy. Each of these has its pecuUar place and merits, each 

 makes contributions to the other, and each imposes the duty 

 of selection within its own field. But besides this there are 

 questions of the inter-relationship between these. It falls to 

 me to discuss the relations of geology to physiography in general 

 education. * 



It may be assumed that the natural order of succession of 

 the phases of earth-study in our educational system is — first, 

 geography, then physiography, and lastly, geology. A practical 

 question of importance presents itself on the threshold : How 

 far will the best selection and adaptation of subject-matter take 

 material from the field of geology and use it in the field of physi- 

 ography? How far, on the other hand, should physiography 

 relinquish its field to be cultivated in the name of geology ? Or, 

 since the field is a common one in a large degree, with no sharp 

 dividing lines, what shall we select as the chief subject-matter 

 of instruction and training in physiography ? ■ The great features 

 of the earth are at once geographic, physiographic, and geo- 

 logic. We may shift our somewhat arbitrary lines of distinc- 

 tion very much as we see fit. We may choose that which is 

 educationally best with little regard to these. 



From the geologic standpoint the physical study of the earth 

 divides its attention between three great elements : First, the 

 agencies and processes engaged in the sculpturing of the land 

 and their results; second, the agencies and processes concerned 

 in the deposit of the waste of the land in the seas and other 

 basins and in the building up of strata ; and third, the internal 

 agencies and processes Avhich disturb and distort the surface and 

 modif}^ the preceding activities and their results. Now, if we 

 are to study processes and agencies in the geologic phase, we 

 must make selection from these three great fields, and our study 

 should embrace agencies and processes if it is to meet the criteria 

 of merit alread}^ sketched. 



To some extent we may make selection from all these fields, 

 and within limits this is eminently desirable to give balance, 

 scope and completeness to the general conception ; but an 

 equable distribution will prevent thoroughness of study in any 

 one field. Besides, they possess unequal merits as educational 



