ADDITIONAL VERIFICATIONS FOR DARWIn's THEORY 493 



geben werden muss" (1883, 190). De Lapparent announced: "II ne 

 semble pas que le phenomene corallien reclame, comme condition essen- 

 tielle, une mobilite generale du lit de Tocean/' and he therefore gave 

 up Darwin's theory (1885, 560). Perrier wrote that the reef around 

 Tahiti "s'explique facilement sans qu'il soit necessaire de faire intervenir 

 aucun affaissement. . . . On ne croit done plus a un lent affaissement 

 de tout le fond du Grand Ocean'' (1887, 24?). Murray concludes: "It 

 seems impossible with our present knowledge to admit that atolls or bar- 

 rier reefs have ever been developed after the manner indicated by Mr. 

 Darwin's simple and beautiful theory" (1888, 262). Guppy said, in the 

 course of a discussion of the origin of reefs, that he v^ould "pass over the 

 theory of subsidence because the more recent facts concerning the ocean 

 depths and the regions of living and upraised reefs compel us to regard 

 it as no longer necessary" (1888, 6). He also wrote: "The necessity of 

 the explanation of subsidence has disappeared, and with it the foundation 

 of Mr. Darwin's hypothesis" (1888, 124). 



NINE VERIFICATIONS FOR SUBSIDENCE 



The coral-reef problem needs a more critical treatment than it received 

 at the hands of the authors here quoted and of many others who might 

 be quoted to the same effect. It is therefore the object of the present 

 paper to emphasize nine lines of verification for the theory of intermit- 

 tent subsidence, some already announced, others new, which I have come 

 to value highly while preparing a general report on my Shaler Memorial 

 voyage across the Pacific in 1914. They contradict all still-stand theories 

 and. give Darwin's theory, in my judgment, superiority over all others. 

 The nine lines of verification are as follows : 



1. The verification of subsidence by the embayed shorelines of reef- 

 encircled islands, long ago pointed out by Dana, has been almost univer- 

 sally neglected and is even now seldom applied in its full quantitative 

 value. 



2. The evidence for subsidence given by the slope of reef foundations 

 has rarely been discussed with due regard to the physiographic evolution 

 of reef-encircled islands. 



3. The proof of subsidence that is furnished by the unconformable 

 contact of elevated reefs with their foundation has been overlook;ed by 

 most observers, and nearly all of those who have recognized the fact of 

 unconformity have failed to see the support that it gives to Darwin's 

 theory. 



4. The proof of subsidence furnished by unconformable fringing reefs 

 at sealevel, foreshadowed by a brief statement in Darwin's book, has never, 



