116 
FOURTEENTH REPORT. 
THE ORIGIN OF CONTINENTAL FORMS II. 
A year ago, before this section, I presented certain geological evidence 
in support of four distinct yet closely related propositions, an out- 
growth of the theory of continental origin first advanced by the Rev- 
erend Osmund Fisher.* These propositions were as follows: 
1. The present geographical plan is the result, primarily, of the 
separation of mass from the earth. 
2. This separation marked the close of the Mesozoic division of geo- 
logical time as determined by the sedimentary series of southern France. 
The separation was caused by extraterrestrial gravitation. 
4. The event was sudden. 
While now venturing once more to draw attention to these proposi- 
tions I desire fully to recognize their debatability and to make it clear 
at the outset that they in no way form the basis of the discussion now 
attempted. They serve, indirectly, to introduce a problem in connection 
with relative levels of land and sea. 
At the close of that paper I mentioned ten objections, of various de- 
grees of importance, which militate against these propositions, of which 
the most serious one apparently, first raised by Barrellj is that the pres- 
ent oceanic waters, distributed over ihe surface of the earth before the 
separation, would average in depth about 10,400 feet which is contrary 
to the claims of Pickering! who discussed the theory in 1907, and also 
to my claims as set forth in the four propositions. 
The natural presumption is that the oceans have maintained a fairly 
constant volume through long stretches of geologic time, presumption 
meaning, of course, not certainty by any means, but merely that degree 
of probability which requires the strongest of evidence to overcome it. 
The evidence is very strong, perhaps strong enough even for that, 
but whatever the final decision, there may still be some advantage in 
the viewing of old facts from a new standpoint, and the present paper 
is an attempt at an impartial analysis of as much of the evidence as 
has so far been obtained bearing upon this question of oceanic volume. 
Barren’s objection, if valid, could be urged with special force against 
my claim that the geography of the Pacific hemisphere indicates that 
all the lands gravitated toward the present site of Australia, actually 
sliding, from various directions, into a huge depression in the side of 
the earth. Had the ocean volume not long after this been the same as 
it is now, Australia and the neighboring islands would presumably 
have been all submerged, but such a submergence is not indicated by 
either their geology or their biota. 
The present oceans, covering approximately three-fourths of the earth’s 
area, average in depth, according to Humboldt and others, between two 
* Fisher, Rev. Osmund, “On t he Physical Cause of the Ocean Basins” “Nature,” Jan. 12, 18S2, pp. 
Barrel] . Joseph, Review of W. II. Pickering’s “Place of Origin of the Moon” etc., 
' {Puckering/ V^Hiam^H.V‘‘The Place of Origin of the Moon,— The Volcanic Problem.” 
Vol. XV, 1907, pp. 23-38. 
Journ. of Geol. 
Jour, of Geol. 
