Deoembee 18, 1908] 



SCIENCE 



887 



marine erosion. It is not clear why chapter 

 28 on displacements of the shore-line is so 

 far removed from chapter 16 on the vertical 

 movements of the earth's crust. 



As was to be expected, the author lays prin- 

 cipal stress on the conception of the geosyn- 

 Kjline. For the first time a European text- 

 'book states this idea at length sufficient to 

 impress the student with its great importance. 

 The statement is, however, charged with de- 

 tails which must lead to debate. For example, 

 the diagram of a typical geosyncline in cross- 

 section (p. 159) indicates a more or less per- 

 fect ssrmmetry in the lithological composition 

 ■of the sedimentary prism filling the down- 

 warp. Yet is not the world's average geosyn- 

 •clinal prism lithologically unsymmetric in 

 ■cross-section? The reviewer believes that the 

 rule is to find the sediments on one side of a 

 ^eosynclinal prism relatively coarse-grained 

 ■because near the main region of erosion, the 

 sediments growing finer-grained toward the 

 opposite side of the prism. The idea of sym- 

 metry is probably suggested by Mons. Haug 

 ^as a by-product of his hypothesis concerning 

 the location of geosynclinal down-warps. He 

 writes (p. 166) : " loin de prendre naissance 

 fiur le bord des oceans, les geosynclinaux sont 

 ■toujours situes entre deux masses conti- 

 nentales et constituent des zones essentielle- 

 ment mobiles, comprises entre deux masses 

 Telativement stables." Can this be correct? 

 Is it safe to generalize from the geosjmclinals' 

 situated in the subequatorial zone of down- 

 warps, Mediterranean seas and mountain- 

 •ranges? It is clear that the Alps and the 

 Himalaya appear to follow the law as stated; 

 but for most of the other " Mesozoic " geo- 

 synclinals the author has allowed his fancy to 

 run very far. On page 162 a world-map is 

 inserted, showing a wholesale "restoration" 

 of the earth in Mesozoic times and a zone of 

 Mesozoic geosynclines almost completely sur- 

 rounding the area of the present Pacific 

 Ocean. To make this ancestor of the moun- 

 -tain-built " circle of fire " obey the law, 



^ The reviewer here uses this word to mean the 

 ■sedimentary prism formed in the down-warp or 

 ■" geosyncline." 



Mons. Haug hypothecates a Mesozoic Pacific 

 continent some 75,000,000 square miles in 

 area. He similarly " restores " a " continent 

 nordatlantique," a " continent Sino-Siberien," 

 a " continent Af ricano-Bresilien," and a 

 " continent Australe-Indo-Malgache." The 

 obvious objection to this vast restoration of 

 land-areas over the sites of the present ocean- 

 basins is most inadequately discussed. In 

 fact, almost the only words bearing on the 

 fundamental matter are the following: 



On a eependant objects aux conclusions qui 

 viennent d'etre exposSes, la difBcultS de loger 

 toute I'eau des mers qui remplit actuellement de 

 profondes depressions auxquelles nous attribuons 

 une origine r^cente. On oublie que les continents 

 ^talent beaucoup moins 6tendues qu'aujourd'hui 

 et que des fosses profondes occupaient des em- 

 placements oa se dressent maintenant de hautes 

 chaines de montagnes. L'oeSan Arctique semble 

 avoir toujours exists et il a pu avoir une pro- 

 fondeur bieu superieure 3. sa profondeur actuelle. 

 De plus, nous ne savons pas si entre Madagascar, 

 I'Australie et le continent Antarctique ne se trou- 

 vait pas ggalement une trfes profonde depression 

 (pp. 532-3). 



But the simplest computation shows that 

 these Arctic and South Indian oceanic basins, 

 together with all the possible volume of the 

 seas of transgression in the Mesozoic, are 

 utterly incompetent to receive the 150,000,000 

 cubic miles of water which must be displaced 

 to make room for the " restored " continents. 

 It may be added that the facts of plant and 

 animal distribution in no wise necessitate such 

 drastic "restoration" of land-areas for the 

 Mesozoic. 



The chapters devoted to petrographic geol- 

 ogy can hardly be regarded as satisfactory. 

 Much emphasis is placed on the theoretical 

 views of a few French authors, but the con- 

 structive work of men like Loewinson-Lessing, 

 Vogt, Teall and Doelter is not discussed and, 

 in general, not even mentioned. The view 

 that granite is the final term of the meta- 

 morphism of geosynclinal sediments is pre- 

 sented, but no mention is made of the enor- 

 mous physical and geological difficulties con- 

 fronting this seductive hypothesis. The heat 

 of fusion is attributed to the " rise of the 



