200 
REVIEW OF MR DANA’s GEOLOGY OF 60 IL. 
REVIEW OF MR. DANA'S GEOLOGY OF SOIL. 
The most striking: effect on the mind in perusing 
Mr. Dana’s Muck Manual, is the manner in which 
he assumes deductive facts at will, and his dog¬ 
matic mode of forcing them on the reader, with¬ 
out in any instance offering a reason for his bold 
assumptions. 
At page 7, he asserts, that “ however named and 
classed are the rocks of the earth’s surface, they 
have one common origin, the molten-matter of the 
globe. Hence, having a common origin, their ul¬ 
timate chemical constituents are similar.” 
What says Buckland ?—Geology has already 
proved by physical evidence, that the surface of 
the globe has not existed in its actual state from 
eternity, but has advanced through a series of cre¬ 
ative operations , succeeding one another at long 
and definite intervals of time.” Page 20, vol. 1st. 
Mr. Dana, page 9, says, “ The chemical constitu¬ 
tion of all rocks is similar.” Again page 10, “ The 
trappean and fossiliferous rocks contain the most 
lime and magnesia; the granitic and non-fossil- 
iferous, the most silex. The amount of this dif¬ 
ference is about from four to seven per cent.; yet 
notwithstanding this, the general chemical consti¬ 
tution of all rocks approaches so nearly to identity, 
that this may be laid down as the first principle in 
agricultural chemistry, that there is one rocky con¬ 
sequently one soil.” 
.We must infer from this, that the chemical con¬ 
stituents of granitic and calcareous rocks are the 
same; and also that the same soil will be pro¬ 
duced from the debris of the two rocks. I need 
not point out to any chemist, mineralogist, or ge¬ 
ologist, the absurdity of such an unwarranted as¬ 
sumption !! 
Mr. Dana goes on to assert, page 10, that “to 
the farmer, all soil is primary. The question then 
arises, how do rocks and soil affect vegetation ? 
As a consequence of the first proposition, it may 
be laid down as the second principle of agricultural 
chemistry that rocks do not affect the vegetation 
which covers them” 
The first proposition is evidently absurd, that 
“all soil is primary;” but if true, what connexion 
is there between this and the deduction, that 
“ rocks do not affect vegetation?” 
In answer to this unsupported assertion of Mr. D., 
I would ask him, why the soils covering lime¬ 
stone rocks are in all countries the most produc¬ 
tive ? Sir Humphrey Davy says, “ The productive¬ 
ness of soil must likewise be influenced by the na¬ 
ture of the subsoil, or the earthy or stony strata on 
which they rest, and this circumstance ought to 
be particularly attended to in considering their 
chemical nature, and the system of agricultural im¬ 
provement.” 
At page 21, Mr. D. makes the following remark¬ 
able and extraordinary assertions !! “ The same 
uniformity of chemical composition characterizes 
soil, which characterizes rocks ; that is great sim¬ 
ilarity, but not identity, and it is on limited patch¬ 
es only, that soil partakes decidedly of the char¬ 
acter of the underlaying rocks.” 
“ The extensive analysis of soil, executed by the 
geological surveyor of Massachusetts, taken from 
every variety of rock-formation, presents a remark¬ 
able uniformity, both of chemical constitution, and 
mineralogical composition of the earthy ingredi¬ 
ents. The same truth is presented by the analy¬ 
sis of soil from various parts of the globe. It is a 
conclusion, warranted by the ividest examination , 
that the mineral constituents of 100 parts of the 
soil of our globe, is composed of sand or silicates 
89.28; salts of lime 00.85.” 
The extracts I have made afford a fair specimen 
of Mr. Dana’s reasoning in his geology of soils. 
It is throughout a series of dogmatic assertions to¬ 
tally unsupported by scientific facts. Europe has 
produced many celebrated analyzers of soils, and 
their results are altogether at variance with Mr. 
Dana’s positive assertions. Vauquelin was an an¬ 
alyzer of soils, and the process prescribed by him, 
in the Annales de Chemie, 30th vol., is the best 
which has yet been offered. Lowitz, Berthier, 
Berzelius, Dundonald, Kirwan, Young, Gay Lus- 
sac, Thenard, Davy, Tillet, and many others in 
Europe, as able chemists in our own country, have 
been analysers of soils, and not one of them ever 
gave such results as appears in Mr. Dana’s geology 
of soil. 
I shall quote three results of analysis of soils, 
two by Sir II. Davy, and one by M. Tillet, all 
widely distant from each other. Sir H. Davy re¬ 
marks that “ those soils that are the most produc¬ 
tive of corn [grain] contain always considerable 
proportions of aluminous or calcareous (lime) earth, 
and most generally both, in a finely divided state.” 
“ The quantity of calcareous earth is however 
very various, and in some cases exceedingly small. 
A very fertile corn soil from Ormiston in East Lo¬ 
thian afforded in a hundred parts only eleven parts 
of calcareous earth; the finely-divided clay amount¬ 
ed to forty-five parts.” 
“A soil from the low lands of Somersetshire, 
celebrated for producing excellent crops of wheat 
and beans without manure; I found to consist of 
11 per cent, of sand, chiefly siliceous, about 70 per 
cent, of lime, about 5 per cent, of vegetable mat¬ 
ter, and other minor ingredients.” 
The most productive soils around Paris, was 
found by M. Tillet, “ to be composed of 36 per 
cent, of aluminous clay, 24 per cent, of river-sand, 
partly siliceous, and 37 per cent, of limestone.” 
Here we have correct analyses of productive soils 
from Scotland, England, and France ; the first con¬ 
taining 11 per cent, of lime and 45 alumina ; the 
second requiring no manure, about 70 per cent, of 
lime, and the third more than 36 per cent. Yet in 
the face of such high authority, Mr. Dana decides 
that “ in the mineral constituents of 100 parts of 
the soil of our globe, there exists but a fraction of 
one per cent, of lime.” As he obtained his infor¬ 
mation from the analysis of the soil of Massachu¬ 
setts, we can no longer be surprised at the sterility 
of that state, and at her having to buy the princi¬ 
pal portion of her grain from more favored states. 
Mr. Dana admits that limited patches only of 
the soil of the globe may partake of the character 
of the under laying rocks. Such admission is not 
required to disprove the positions laid down by 
him. Without knowing anything of geology, it 
must be evident to the most unscientific observer 
that Infinite Wisdom did not place such immense 
