GEOLOGY: C. SCHUCHERT 
69 
flow of lava descending from the volcano of Stromboli, in Sicily, and 
entering the sea, and in 1914 a similar occurrence at Sakurashima, 
Japan. At Stromboli a surface flow was 20 meters wide, and the hot 
lava ' 'entered the water at an average rate of about 3 cm. per minute." 
A little distance beyond the actual contact with the water and in "a 
perfectly calm sea there is rarely a continuous and uniform evolution 
of vapor. At Sakurashima, on March 12, 1914, the lava, at one place, 
was entering a sea as smooth as glass, yet the evolution of steam was 
spasmodic and resulted in a series of puffs." In regard to the subsur- 
face flow of lava, a condition of greater importance in the present dis- 
cussion, Perret writes as follows: 
At Sakurashima there was a submarine lava flow extending from beneath 
the eastern lava field for a distance of 2 kilometers along the sea bottom. 
The lava had a depth of some 75 meters, with 40 meters of water above it 
. . . . The only disturbance visible at the surface was a succession of 
convection currents in the water, without eruption of gas, and without rais- 
ing the water temperature above 64° F. at the surface and 72° just over the 
lava. 
He concludes "that a flowing lava may exist in contact with water 
without the disintegration of either, thanks to the formation of a pro- 
tective sheath, and this fact helps us to understand the quiet growth 
of submarine volcanoes. In such cases the only surface commotion 
need be that due to true gas emission at the central vent. In point 
of fact, a sub-aqueous lava stream comports itself more decorously 
than a similar sub-aerial one." This is due to an important fact, namely 
that even if the protective cooled sheath is broken in places ''and a 
little water enter and be vaporized in the act of sheathing the raw places 
. . . . that which is thus evolved is simply the vapor of water, 
and this, in the presence of water in mass, condenses to water again — 
there is nothing to reach the surface and cause ebullition." 
Doctor Day in the letter to me mentioned above, dated November 
27, 1916, comments on Termier's conclusion and the observations of 
Perret as follows: 
I have just read Professor Termier's interesting speculation entitled 'Atlan- 
tis' and must confess that I find nothing in my experience with which to sup- 
port his views. In the forthcoming number of the American Journal of 
Science you will find an article by Perret [the one reviewed above] who is 
one of the most accurate observers of volcano phenomena with whom I ever 
came in contact. In this article he records in unmistakable terms that there 
is no essential difference in the behavior of a sub-aqueous and a sub-aerial 
