June 9, 1911] 



SCIENCE 



883 



coral-reef regions, and did not enter into 

 any controversial matters. The real point 

 of his address came out in the subsequent 

 discussion, viz., that in all his investiga- 

 tions and voyages he had not seen one 

 single atoll or barrier-reef which could be 

 said to be an illustration of the Darwinian 

 theory of coral reefs. It was evident to a 

 large number of naturalists who had them- 

 selves observed in the field that the subsi- 

 dence theory was no more necessary to 

 account for the characteristic features of 

 atolls and barrier reefs than the elevation 

 theory of Darwin — published about the 

 same time — was necessary to account for 

 the Parallel Koads of Glen Eoy in Scot- 

 land.^ 



It is difficult to account for the heated 

 controversies which have raged around the 

 coral-reef question. Possibly these would 

 never have taken place had the subsidence 

 theory not been associated with the name 

 of Darwin. Very many of the public did 

 not seem to realize that this theory of coral 

 reefs was the work of Darwin when young 

 and inexperienced, and had nothing what- 

 ever to do with the theory of natural 

 selection. When the late Duke of Argyll 

 published his famous article entitled "A 

 Conspiracy of Silence," in the nineteenth 

 century (September, 1887), he gave Ba- 

 thyiius and coral-reef theories as illustra- 

 tions, and many people regarded the ar- 

 ticle as a suggestion that Darwinists and 

 evolutionists were disposed to burke free 

 discussion. This was hotly resented by 

 Huxley and others, while some naturalists 

 seem to have believed they were called 

 upon to defend Darwin's coral-reef theory, 

 although they had never seen or examined 



^ See ' ' Observations on the Parallel Eoads of 

 Glen Eoy, and of other parts of Lochaber in 

 Scotland, with an attempt to prove that they are 

 of marine origin," Phil. Trans., 1839, p. 39; 

 Edin. New Phil. Journ., Vol. XXVII., p. 395, 

 1839. 



a coral-reef. Agassiz kept severely aloof 

 from all these controversies, although he 

 writes that he was much amused by the 

 style of various articles and controversies. 

 In one letter to me (March, 1888) he 

 writes: "I am glad to see by last Nature 

 that you are taking a hand in the coral 

 discussion now that it has reached hard 

 bottom and no longer deals with imaginary 

 quantities, impossible algebra and meta- 

 physical squibs." 



AU scientific men must regret that Agas- 

 siz was not spared to publish the long-ex- 

 pected summary of his coral-reef work, 

 and to learn that he has not left behind 

 any manuscript suitable for publication 

 giving a connected statement of his views. 

 Such a work from his pen would doubtless 

 have been a splendid edifice erected on the 

 magnificent foundation of observation laid 

 with so much expense, trouble and care in 

 the elaborate memoirs on the coral-reef 

 regions he had visited in all parts of the 

 world. 



Throughout all these coral-reef investi- 

 gations I have been in substantial agree- 

 ment with Agassiz 's views. In these cir- 

 cumstances I need make no apology for 

 giving a short statement of the conclusions 

 at which, I think, Agassiz had arrived as 

 a result of his coral-reef investigations. 



Agassiz claimed, I believe, to have shown 

 that existing atolls and barrier reefs in no 

 way indicate, even approximately, the for- 

 mer position of the shore lines around 

 islands or along coasts now deeply sub- 

 merged beneath the ocean. 



The submerged banks from which atolls 

 and barrier reefs now arise have been 

 formed- — that is, they have been built up 

 or leveled down — in a great variety of 

 ways, and at very different times. Each 

 coral-reef region must in this regard be 

 studied by itself, account being taken of 



