A Lot About a Little Bit of England

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size

Notes

^∗A. M. Cetâl Şengör is Professor of Geological at Intanbul Technical University, specializing in tectonics. He is a member of the Turkish Academy of Sciences, Academea Europaca and a foreign associate of U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the American Philosophical Society.

¹R. R. Shrock, Sequence in Layered Rocks—A Study of Features and Structures Useful for Determining Top and Bottom or Order of Succession in Bedded and Tabular Rock Bodies (New York, 1948), p. 24.

²See, for example, J. Marcou, Les géologues et la géologie du Jura jusqu'en 1870 (Lons-le-Saunier, 1889); J. Blaas, Die geologische Erforschung Tirols und Vorarlbergs in der zweiten Hälfte des 19. Jahrhunderts—Eine Besprechung der gesammten geologischen Literatur dieses Gebietes und Zeitraumes (Innsbruck, 1900); B. von Freyberg, Die geologische Erforschung Thüringens in Älterer Zeit—Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Geologie bis zum Jahre 1843 (Berlin, 1932); A. Pilger, Die tektonische Erforschung der Alpen zwischen 1787 und 1915 (Clausthaler Geologische Abhandlungen, No. 32, 1978); J.-P. Schaer, Les géologues et le développement de la géologie en pays de Neuchâtel (Neuchâtel, 1998). The scholarly Istoriya Geologicheskogo Issledovaniya Sibiri. 5 vols (Moscow, 1930–1959) by the great geologist, historian of geology and novelist, Vladimir Afanasiyevich Obruchev, is in principle a similar effort, although its ‘region’ is the immense Siberia.

³O. Wagenbreth, ‘Die Lausitzer Überschiebung und die Geschichte ihrer geologischen Erforschung’, Abhandlungen des Staatlichen Museums für Mineralogie und Geologie (1966), Teil I, 11, 163–279, Teil II, 12, 279–368.

⁴O. Wagenbreth, ‘Die Lausitzer Überschiebung und die Geschichte ihrer geologischen Erforschung’, Abhandlungen des Staatlichen Museums für Mineralogie und Geologie (1966), Teil I, 11, 163–279, Teil II, 12, 279–368.

⁵Thomas Robinson, An Essay Towards a Natural History of Westmorland and Cumberland … With some Directions how to Discover Minerals by … Strata (London, 1709).

⁶R. Des-Cartes, Principia Philosophiae (Amstelodami, 1644).

⁷N. Stenonis, De solido intra solidum naturaliter contento dissertationis prodromus (Florence, 1669). For an English translation and assessment, see N. Steno, The Prodromus of Nicolaus Steno's Dissertation, translated by John Garrett Winter (New York, 1916).

⁸M. Gortani, ‘Idee precorritrici di Luigi Ferdinando Marsili’ in Memoria intorno a Luigi Ferdinando Marsili (Bologna, 1930), pp. 1–19.

⁹R. Bakewell, An Introduction to Geology (London, 1813).

¹⁰B. J. Taylor, I. C. Burgess, D. H. Land, D. A. C. Mills, D. B. Smith and P. T. Warren, British Regional Geology: Northern England, 4th ed. (London, 1971), based on previous editions by T. Eastwood, Plate XIII.

¹¹W. Phillips, A Selection of Facts from the Best Authorities, Arranged so as to Form an Outline of the Geology of England and Wales (London, 1818).

²⁷Smith (note 22) p. 9.

¹²J.-L. G., Soulavie, Histoire naturelle de France Méridionale (Nismes, 1780), I, 319.

¹³G. Cuvier, ‘Mémoire sur les éspèces d’éléphans tant vivantes que fossiles, lu à la séance publique de l'Institut National le 15 germinal, an IV’, Magasin encyclopédique, 2. année [1796], No. 3, 440–45; idem, [1798], Mémoire sur les éspèces d’éléphans vivantes que fossiles, lu à l'Institut National le premier pluviôse (Paris, an IV); idem, ‘Mémoire sur les éspèces d’éléphans vivantes et fossiles’, Mémoires de l'Institut National des Sciences et Arts, Classe Sciences Mathématiques et Physiques, 2 (1799), pp. 1–22. For English translations of these papers and commentary, see M. J. S. Rudwick, Georges Cuvier, Fossil Bones and Geological Catastrophes—New Translations & Interpretation of the Primary Texts (Chicago and London, 1997). Regrettably, Rudwick does not refer to earlier, early nineteenth-century English translations. For the clarification of the confusion in the date of Cuvier's 1796 lecture. See M. J. S. Rudwick, The Meaning of Fossils—Episodes in the History of Palaeontology (London and New York, 1976), pp. 101–63.

¹⁴A. M. C. Şengör, ‘Jeolojik Takvim’, Cogito, No. 22 (2000), 47 pp. + a fold-out geological timetable; A. M. C. Şengör and M. Sakinç, ‘Structural Rocks: Stratigraphic Implications’, in Paradoxes in Geology (Hsü Volume), edited by U. Briegel, and W. J. Xiao (Amsterdam, 2001), pp. 134–45; A. M. C. Şengör, 2005, Une autre histoire de la tectonique: Leçons Inaugurales du Collège de France (Paris, 2005).

¹⁵G.-L. L. Buffon, Histoire naturelle, générale et particulière—Supplément tome cinquième (Paris, 1778), p. 15.

¹⁶A century later, this took the form of Dollo's rule in evolution: evolution does not retrace its steps.

¹⁷J. Phillips, Memoirs of William Smith, LL. D., Author of the ‘Map of the Strata of England and Wales’ (London, 1844), pp. 17ff. See L. R. Cox, ‘New light on William Smith and his Work’, Proceedings of the Yorkshire Geological Society, 25 (1942), 1–99, for a facsimile of this note, expressing admiration for the ‘wonderful order and regularity with which Nature has disposed of these singular productions and assigned to each class its peculiar Stratum’. Note the absence of any time connotation here. We know from Smith's later writings that, according to him, repetition of similar strata might bring about repetition of the same fossils à la Lister and Baldassari (see note 33 below).

¹⁸A. Geikie, The Founders of Geology, 2nd ed. (London, 1905), p. 394n. See also J. Farey, General View of the Agriculture and Minerals of Derbyshire: With Observations on the Means of their Improvement (London, 1811) I, 108–110. Farey gives no date but emphasizes that Smith thought that organic remains were peculiar to certain strata. Farey also makes clear that Smith first was impressed by the regularity of succession of strata. Fossil content discovery came later. But this account was written three years after the publication by Cuvier and Brongniart and two years after the publication of the English translation of Cuvier's report on A. Chrysologue de Gy (see note 37 below). Moreover, all such accounts by Smith's friends were published after there was some questioning of his priority (see Geikie this note).

¹⁹L. de Launay, La science géologique: ses méthodes, ses résultats—ses problèmes, son histoire (Paris, 1905), p. 77.

²⁰H. Woodward, ‘Life of William Smith the “Father of English Geology”’, Proceedings of the Bath Natural History and Antiquarian Field Club, 10 (1902), 5.

²¹H. B. Woodward, History of Geology (London, 1911), p. 133.

²²W. Smith, A Memoir to the Map and Delineation of the Strata of England and Wales, with Part of Scotland (London, 1815), p. 1.

²³Woodward (note 20). Also Farey's account in 1811 (note 18).

²⁴J. M. Eyles, ‘William Smith: Some Aspects of his Life and Work’, in Toward a History of Geology, edited by C. J. Schneer (Cambridge, MA, 1969), pp. 151ff.

²⁵Published in Smith (note 22) [Table] No. 1.

²⁶Eyles (note 24) p. 144.

²⁸Smith (note 22) p. 9. By ‘paper’, Smith presumably meant the MS shown to him by Reynolds.

³³W. Smith, Strata Identified by Organized Fossils Containing Prints on Coloured Paper of the Most Characteristic Specimens in Each Stratum (London, 1816), p. 22, my italics.

³⁴W. Smith, Strata Identified by Organized Fossils Containing Prints on Coloured Paper of the Most Characteristic Specimens in Each Stratum (London, 1816), p. 18.

²⁹W. Smith, Stratigraphical System of Organized Fossils with Reference to the Specimens of The Original Geological Collection in the British Museum (London, 1817), p. v.

³⁰Eyles (note 24), pp. 142–58.

³¹J. A. Douglas and L. R. Cox, ‘An Early List of Strata by William Smith’, Geological Magazine, 86 (1949), 185.

³²Smith (note 22) table 1. See also the photographic reproduction of his MS table of 1799, in B. Kummel, 1970, History of the Earth—An Introduction to Historical Geology (San Francisco, 1970), frontispiece, where these words are legible. Farey lists flint nodules as characterizing the Flinty Chalk along with organic remains (note 18), pp. 111–12.

³⁵See W. N. Edwards, The Early History of Palaeontology (London, 1967), p. 36. Was that not also an observation made by Martin Lister already in the seventeenth century, because of which he had rejected the organic origin of fossils? See Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 6 (1671), 2281–84.

³⁶Smith (note 33), p. 18.

³⁷Rapport de l'Institut National. Classe de Sciences Physiques et Mathématiques: in A. Chrysologue de Gy, Théorie de la surface actuelle de la terre, ou plutôt recherches impartiales sur le temps et l'agent de l'arrangement actuel de la surface de la terre, fondées, uniquement, sur les faits, sans systême et sans hypothèse: (Paris, 1806), pp. 315–16. This text was signed jointly by Lelièvre, Haüy, and Cuvier, but Cuvier had written it alone and read it. See W. Coleman, Georges Cuvier, Zoologist (Cambridge, MA, 1964), p. 113; also see J. C. Smith, Georges Cuvier. An Annotated Bibliography of his Published Works (Washington and London, 1993), items 209 and 272, and p. 234, where Smith points out that ‘Cuvier was presumably the author of those reports for which he served as reporter’ (as was the case here). The text had an anonymous English translation published in Annals of Philosophy, 33 (1809), 315–16, and thus was available to English readers. See Rudwick (note 13), pp. 106–108, for an independent translation. Cuvier's report was also published in Journal des Mines, 21 (1807), 413–30.

⁴¹Cited in Rupke (note 38), p. 193.

³⁸N. A. Rupke, The Great Chain of History: William Buckland and the English School of Geology (1814–1849) (Oxford, 1983).

³⁹Extract from the minutes of the Council, 11 January 1831, quoted from the Proceedings of the Geological Society, I, 271, in Rupke (note 38), p. 191, italics mine.

⁴⁰G. Cuvier and A. Brongniart, ‘Essai sur la géographie minéralogique des environs de Paris’, Journal des Mines, 23 (1808), 421–58; idem, Essai sur la géographie minéralogique des environs de Paris, avec une carte géognostique et des coupes de terrain (Paris, 1811).

⁴²Cited in Rupke (note 38), p. 192.

⁴³H. B. Woodward, The History of the Geological Society of London (London, 1907), p. 14.

⁴⁴It was the timing and the directions, especially of Westmoreland. See L. Élie de Beaumont, ‘Systèmes de montagnes’: in Dictionnaire universelle d'histoire naturelle, edited by C. d'Orbigny (Paris, 1849), XII (Part 1), p. 215. The pronouncements of Sedgwick concerning the timing were among the first discoveries of what later was to be called the Caledonian mountains. E. Suess, ‘Über unterbrochene Gebirgsfaltung’, Sitzungsberichte der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, mathematish-naturwissenschaftliche Classe, 94 (1886), 111–17.

⁴⁵Engels, F., Dialektik der Natur, reprinted in Karl Marx Friedrich Engels Werke, XX, Institut für Marxismus-Leninismus beim ZK der SED, Dietz Verlag (Berlin, 1925[1971]), p. 317n.

⁴⁶For the colonies concept of Barrande and its history, see J. Kriz and J. Pojeta, ‘Barrande's Colonies Concept and a Comparison of his Stratigraphy with the Modern Stratigraphy of the Middle Bohemian Lower Paleozoic Rocks (Barrandian) of Czechoslovakia’, Journal of Paleontology, 48 (1974), 489–94; R. Horny and V. Turek 1999, Joachim Barrande (1799–1883)—His Life, Work and Heritage to World Palaeontology (Prague, 1999).

⁴⁸E. Suess, ‘Über die Wohnsitze der Brachiopoden—II. Abschnitt. Die Wohnsitze der fossilen Brachiopoden’, Sitzungsberichte der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, mathematisch-naturwissenschaftliche Classe, 39 (1859), 195. My translation. In this connection, it is interesting that Forbes himself opposed the colony concept and gave support to the idea of tectonic repetition (see the volume under review, p. 59 n 4).

⁴⁷For the controversy, see J. Barrande, ‘Colonies dans le bassin silurien de la Bohême’, Bulletin de la Société Géologique de France, Série 2, 17 (1860), 602–66.

⁴⁹See E. T. Tozer, The Trias and its Ammonoids: The Evolution of a Time Scale (Geological Survey of Canada, Miscellaneous Report 35, 1984), for an excellent account of that controversy which is widely believed to have ruined the health of both Mojsisovics and Bittner and carried these two Viennese gaints of geology to early deaths. For another but contemporary stratigraphical controversy, see W. A. S. Sarjeant and W. A. P. Wimbledon, ‘The Terminal Jurassic Stage: History of a Controversy in Stratigraphy’, Modern Geology, 24 (2000), 125–58.

⁵⁰M. J. S. Rudwick, ‘The Group Construction of Scientific Knowledge: Gentlemen-Specialists and the Devonian Controversy’, in The Kaleidoscope of Science, edited by E. Ullman-Murgalit (Dordrecht, 1986), pp. 193–217.

⁵¹M. J. S. Rudwick, The Great Devonian Controversy—The Shaping of Scientific Knowledge among Gentlemanly Specialists (Chicago and London, 1985); D. R. Oldroyd, The Highlands Controversy—Constructing Geological Knowledge through Fieldwork in Nineteenth-Century Britain (Chicago and London, 1990).

⁵²In the concluding chapter of Oldroyd's Highlands (ibid.), there is indeed much talk about the post-modernist notions of how knowledge might be socially dependent, but Oldroyd makes clear that, in the end, he believes it was the objective evidence that counted. For example, Geikie ‘reluctantly changed his mind in the face of the evidence the surveyors showed him at Loch Eriboll’, ibid., p. 353.

⁵³‘But if philosophical realism is to be revived in the analysis of scientific knowledge, as I believe it should be, then it must be in a form that acknowledges that the human learning processes that generate knowledge are social in character through and through. The individual scientist confronts the natural world only through the mediation of group interactions in the social world’ Rudwick (note 50), p. 214. I argue that the ways we reach data are indeed social (from procuring simple transportation to obtaining funding etc.), but not the ways we learn and the ways we generate knowledge.

⁵⁴I have discussed the role of objective data versus sociological factors in science using an example from the history of geology in two papers: A. M. C., Şengör, ‘The Repeated Rediscovery of Mélanges and its Implications for the Possibility and the Role of Objective Evidence in the Scientific Enterprise’, in Ophiolite Concept and the Evolution of Geological Thought, edited by Y. Dilek and S. Newcomb (Geological Society of America Special Paper 373, 2003, 385–445); idem, ‘Repeated Independent Discovery and “Objective Evidence” in Science: An Example from Geology’, in Turkish Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, edited by G. Irzik and G. Güzeldere (The Netherlands, 2005), pp. 113–36.

⁵⁵For the history of the Highlands controversy, Oldroyd's Highlands remains the best source (note 51). For a shorter, but equally authoritative account, see D. B. McIntyre, The Moine Thrust—Its Discovery, Age and Tectonic Significance’, Proceedings of the Geologists’ Association, 65 (1954), 203–23.

⁵⁶Regrettably, we have to this day not a single comprehensive treatment of the history of geology in the Alps. The following are some of the summary papers on the history of their tectonics or parts thereof: E. Hennig, ‘Das Ringen um Erkenntnis des Alpenbaus und seine Bedeutung für geologische Weltanschauung’ Natur und Volk, 64 (1934), 291–302 and 342–53; de E. de Margerie, ‘Trois moments dans l'histoire de l’étude des Alpes Suisses: de Saussure, Studer, Heim’, Bulletin de la Section de Géographie du Comité des Travaux Historiques et Scientifiques, 58 (1943 [1947]), 1–39. For an English summary, see idem, ‘Three Stages in the Evolution of Alpine Geology: de Saussure—Studer—Heim’, Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London, 102 ([1947]), xcvii–cxiv; H. Masson, ‘Un siècle de géologie des Préalpes: de la découverte des nappes à la recherché de leur dynamique’ Eclogae geologicae helvetiae, 69 (1976), 527–75; R. Trümpy, ‘Cent ans de tectonique de nappes dans les Alpes’ Comptes rendus de l'Academie des Sciences (Paris), Série générale, 5 (1988), 1–13; idem, ‘The Structure of the Alps: 1891 to 1991’, Casopis pro mineralogii a geologii, 36 (1991), 185–92; idem, ‘The Glarus Nappes: A Controversy of a Century Ago’ in Controversies in Modern Geology, Hsü-Festschrift, edited by D. W. Müller, J. A. McKenzie and H. Weissert (London, 1991), pp. 385–404; idem, ‘Tectonic Units of Central Switzerland: Their Interpretation from A.D.1708 to the Present Day’, Bulletin of Applied Geology, 3 (1998), 163–82; T. Hofmann, ‘Von der Geognosie zur Plattentektonik’, Berg'98 Alpenvereinsjahrbuch, Deutsche und Österreichische Alpenverein und Alpenverein von Südtirol (München, Innsbruck and Bozen, 1998), 117–23; G. V. Dal Piaz, ‘History of Tectonic Interpretations of the Alps’, Journal of Geodynamics, 32 (2001), 99–114. Also, see Pilger (note 2) and the important paper by R. Trümpy, ‘Trying to Understand Alpine Sediments—before 1950’, Earth-Science Reviews, 61 (2003), 19–42.

⁵⁷A. M. C. Şengör, 1993, ‘Some Current Problems on the Tectonic Evolution of the Mediterranean during the Cainozoic’, in Recent Evolution and Seismicity of the Mediterranean Region, edited by E. Boschi, E. Mantovani and A. Morelli, NATO ASI Series, Series C: Mathematical and Physical Sciences, Volume 402 (Dordrecht, 1993), pp. 1–51. Low-angle normal faulting and simultaneous thrusting occurs under compression and gravity in mountain ranges, especially where there is lubrication by magma injection in the higher levels of the orogen. For an outstanding and well-described example, see B. C. Burchfiel, Z. L. Chen, K. V. Hodges, Y. P Liu, L. H. Royden, C. R. Deng and J. N. Xu, ‘The South Tibetan Detachment System, Himalayan Orogen: Extension Contemporaneous with and Parallel to Shortening in a Collisional Mountain Belt’, The Geological Society of America Special Paper 269 (1992). What I say here also applies to Oldroyd's approval of what Frederick Green said about Marr's lags in 1915 (p. 81, the volume under review).

⁵⁸On the same page, Oldroyd talks about ‘reverse or thrust faults’. Many authors, especially American structural geologists, have long been under the impression that reverse faults are simply a steeper variety of thrusts. That is not the case. A reverse fault is a purely geometrical description which designates an overlap of strata along a fault only in cross-section. A thrust fault implies actual movement up the dip direction of the fault along the fault. A reverse fault need not bring about shortening across the fault. A thrust fault invariably does.

⁵⁹H. Schardt, ‘Encore les régions exotiques—répliques aux attaques de M. Emile Haug’, Bulletin de la société vaudoise des sciences naturelles, 36 (1900), 147–69. For a review of the history of ideas on the Préalpes, see Masson (note 56). For a general history of geology in Switzerland for the relevant interval, see idem, ‘La géologie en Suisse de 1882 à 1932’, Eclogae geologicae helvetiae, 76 (1983), 47–64.

⁶⁰See the history of ideas on the Glarus area in Rudolf Trümpy's ‘The Glarus Nap pes: A Controversy of a Century Ago’, in Modern Controversies in Geology, edited by D. W. Müller, J. A. McKenzie and H. Weissert (London, 1991), pp. 385–404.

⁶¹P.Termier, ‘Les nappes des Alpes Orientales et la synthèse des Alpes’ Bulletin de la société géologique de France, Série 4, 3 (1903), 711–65 + 2 foldout plates.

⁶²V. Uhlig, ‘Bau und Bild der Karpathen’, in Bau und Bild Österreichs mit einem Vorworte von Eduard Suess, edited by C. Diener, R. Hoernes, F. E. Suess and V. Uhlig (Vienna and Leipzig, 1903), pp. 649–911 + a coloured foldout map.

⁶³M. Lugeon, M., Les grands nappes de recouvrement des Alpes Suisses’ Congrès Géologique International Compte rendu de la IX. session, Vienne 1903, Premier fascicule (Vienna, 1904), pp. 477–92. The Carpathians were not mentioned in Lugeon's lecture in Vienna, although he had reinterpreted them in terms of the nappes in the same year. See M. Lugeon, ‘Les nappes de recouvrement de la Tatra et l'origine des klippes des Carpathes’, Bulletin des Laboratoires de Géologie, Géographie Physique, Minéralgie et Paléontologie de l'Université de Lausanne (Suisse), No. 4, 1903 (reprinted from Bulletin de la société vaudoise des sciences naturelles, Volume 39). On the basis of that, after Lugeon's lecture, in the discussion in Vienna, his countryman Baltzer brought up Lugeon's reinterpretation of the Carpathians. See Congrès Géologique International—Compte rendu de la IX. session, Vienne, 1903 (Vienna, 1904), I, 125. For Uhlig's nervous breakdown, see M. Brockmann-Jerosch, A. Heim, and H. Heim, Albert Heim—Leben und Forschung (Basel, 1952), p. 103.

⁶⁴V. Uhlig, ‘Über die Tektonik der Karpathen’, Sitzungsberichte der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, mathematisch-naturwissenschaftliche Klasse, 116, Part I (1907), 871–982 + a plate of sections + map.

⁶⁵L. von Lóczy, ‘Beobachtungen im östlichen Himalaya (vom 8. bis 28. Febr.1878)’, Földraszi Közlemenyek, 35 (1907), 1–24.

⁶⁶E. Suess, ‘Sur la nature des charriages’, Comptes rendus hébdomadaires de l'Académie des Sciences, 139 (1904), 714–16.

⁶⁷W. [E.] Logan, ‘Remarks on the Fauna of the Quebec Group of Rocks and the Primordial Zone of Canada (in a letter addressed to Mr Joachim Barrande of Paris, by Sir William E. Logan, Director of the Geol. Survey of Canada)’, American Journal of Science and Arts, 2nd Series, 25 (1858), 216–20; idem, ‘Considerations Relating to the Quebec Group, and the Upper Copper-bearing rocks of Lake Superior’ American Journal of Science and Arts, 2nd series, 33 (1868), 320–26.

⁶⁸C. W. Hayes, ‘The Overthrust Faults of the Southern Appalachians’, Bulletin of the Geological Society of America, 2 (1891), 141–52; idem, 1894, Geology of a Portion of the Coosa Valley in Georgia and Alabama’, Bulletin of the Geological Society of America, 5 (1894), 465–80; E. A. Smith, ‘Underthrust Folds and Faults’, American Journal of Science, 3rd Series, 45 (1893), 305–306. For a convenient history of ideas on the structure of the southern and middle Appalachians, see J. Rodgers, ‘Evolution of Thought on Structure of Middle and Southern Appalachians’, Bulletin of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, 33 (1949), 1643–54. It is a great pity that there is no comprehensive history of ideas on the geology of the Appalachians whence many of the classical concepts of geology originated.

⁶⁹A. Keith, ‘Further Discoveries in the Taconic Mountains (abstract)’, Bulletin of the Geological Society of America, 24 (1913), 680.

⁷⁰B. Willis, ‘Stratigraphy and Structure of the Lewis and Livingston Ranges, Montana’, Bulletin of the Geological Society of America, 13 (1902), 305–52. For the source of Willis’ inspiration, see B. Willis, Geologic Structures (New York, 1923), 88.

⁷¹E. Blackwelder, ‘Geology of the Wasatch Mountains, Utah’ Bulletin of the Geological Society of America, 21 (1910), 517–42.

⁷²For Scandinavia, see A. E. Törnebohm, ‘Grunddragen af det Centrala Skandinaviens Bergbyggnad’, Köngl. Svenska Vetenskaps-Akademiens Handlingar, 28, No. 5 (1896). However, in Scandinavia, there was serious opposition to Törnebohm's interpretations. See particularly F. Svenonius, ‘Öfversikt af Stora Sjöffallets och angränsande flälltrakters geologi’, Geologiska Föreningens i Stockholm Förhandlingar, 22 (1901), 273–322 + a folding map.

⁷³J. E. Marr, ‘Notes on the Geology of the English Lake District’, Proceedings of the Geologists’ Association, 16 (1900), 449–83 (p. 462).

⁷⁴E. Suess, Die Entstehung der Alpen (Vienna, 1875), pp. 61ff.

⁷⁵E. Suess, 1883, Das Antlitz der Erde (Prague and Leipzig, 1883), Ia (Erste Abtheilung), p. 159. When Marr coined the term ‘tear fault’, no part of Suess's Antlitz had yet been translated into English.

⁷⁶J. E. Marr, ‘The Influences of the Geological Structure of English Lakeland upon its Present Features—A Study in Physiography’, Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London, 62 (1906), lxvi–cxxviii.

⁷⁷E. Suess, The Face of the Earth (Das Antlitz der Erde), translated by Hertha B. C. Sollas under the direction of W. J. Sollas, Volume I (Oxford, 1904). For Blatt, see p. 120. Strangely the editor, W. J. Sollas, added a footnote (p. 120 n3), in which he wrote: ‘This has been rendered “flaw” in the translation, a word which, like the feature itself, has some fellowship with “fault”’. He must have been unaware of Marr's term. In his 1906 paper, Marr referred to Suess's term as Blatt and not by Sollas's preferred English equivalent. In the International Tectonic Dictionary—English Terminology, Dennis writes that Suess's Blatt is a more general term than Marr's ‘tear fault’. This is not true. The two terms designate exactly the same kinds of structures. The apparent difference results from Suess's usage of that term also for structures of lithospheric scale. See J. G. Dennis, International Tectonic Dictionary—English Terminology (American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Memoir 7, 1967), p. 56.

⁷⁸This term was introduced by the great German palaeontologist, Adolf Seilacher in 1969: A. Seilacher, ‘Fault-graded Beds Interpreted as Seismites’, Sedimentology, 13 (1969), 155–9.

⁷⁹For example, Suess (note 74) pp. 29, 46; idem (note 75) I, 288; III/2, p. 619.

⁸⁰For example, Suess (note 75), III/2, p. 720.

⁸¹See, for example, F. Löwl, Geologie, Die Erdkunde, Eine Darstellung ihrer Wissensgebiete, ihrer Hilfswissenschaften und der Methode ihres Unterrichtes, edited by M. Klar (Leipzig and Vienna, 1906), XI, pp. 171, 173; E. Tietze, ‘Einige Seiten über Eduard Suess—Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Geologie’, Jahrbuch der königlich- und kaiserlichen geologischen Reichsanstalt, 66 (1917), pp. 442, 444ff.

⁸²Suess (note 48), pp. 156–69. Also, see E. Suess, ‘Abschieds-Vorlesung des Professors Eduard Suess bei seinem Rücktritte vom Lehramte gehalten am 13. Juli 1901 im geologischen Hörsaale der Wiener Universität’, Beiträge zur Paläontologie und Geologie Österreich-ungarns und des Orients, 14, Part 1 (1901), 1–8; idem, ‘Das Leben’, Mitteilungen der Geologischen Gesellschaft, Wien, 2 (1909), 148–61.

⁸³E. Suess, ‘Synthesis of the Paleogeography of North America’, American Journal of Science, 4th Series, 31 (1911), 101–8.

⁸⁴On p. 122, Oldroyd reports an azimuth reading as N240E. I do not understand what this means. I guess that he read 240, which would be when one uses the 360° compass, but fitted it into the American style, reading from the north, westwards or eastwards.

⁸⁵J. G. Fitton and D. J. Hughes, ‘Volcanism and Plate Tectonics in the British Ordovician’, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 8 (1970), 223–28.

⁸⁶J. F. Dewey, ‘Evolution of the Appalachian/Caledonian Orogen’, Nature, 222 (1969), 124–29.

⁸⁷W. B. Harland and R. A. Gayer, ‘The Arctic Caledonides and Earlier Oceans’ Geological Magazine, 109 (1972), 289–314. For problems of priority in naming that ocean, see D. Skevington, ‘Poseidon, Proto-Atlantic and Iapetus’, Geological Magazine, 110 (1973), 374.

⁸⁸F. E. Suess, ‘A Suggested Interpretation of the Scottish Caledonide Structure’, Geological Magazine, 68 (1931), 71–81.

⁸⁹F. E. Suess's main publications covering this topic, in addition to the paper cited in the previous footnote, are: F. E. Suess, Intrusionstektonik und Wandertektonik im variszischen Grundgebirge (Berlin, 1926); idem, ‘Bausteine zu einem System der Tektogenese—I. Periplutonische und enorogene Regionalmetamorphose in ihrer tektogenetischen Bedeutung’ in Fortschritte der Geologie und Palaeontologie, edited by W. Soergel, XIII, No. 42 (Berlin, 1937); idem, ‘Bausteine zu einem System der Tektogenese—II. Zum Bewegungsbilde des älteren Mitteleuropa; hypokinematische Regionalmetamorphose’, in Fortschritte der Geologie und Palaeontologie, edited by W. Soergel, XIII, No. 43 (Berlin 1937), pp. 87–238; idem, ‘Der Bau der Kaledoniden und Wegener's Hypothese’, Zentralblatt für Mineralogie, Geologie und Paläontologie, Part B, No. 9 (1938), 321–37; idem, ‘Bausteine zu einem System der Tektogenese—III. Der Bau der Kaledoniden und die Schollendrift im Nordatlantik A. Die Kaledoniden in Schottland und Vergleiche’, in Fortschritte der Geologie und Palaeontologie, edited by W. Soergel, XIII, No. 4 (Berlin, 1939), pp. 239–376; idem, ‘Bausteine zu einem System der Tektogenese—III. A. Der Bau der Kaledoniden und die Schollendrift im Nordatlantik; B. Die Kaledoniden in Skandinavien; C. Die Kaledoniden in Grönland’, Mitteilungen der Geologischen Gesellschaft in Wien, 36–38 (1949), 20–230.

⁹⁰Fossil content as summarized later in the comprehensive review by A. Öpik, ‘Paläontologie, Arktisforschung und Kontinentalverschiebung’, Mitteilungen der Naturforschenden Gesellschaft von Schaffhausen, 16 (1940), 47.

⁹¹F. Moseley, ‘Caledonian Plate Tectonics and the Place of the English Lake District’, Geological Society of America Bulletin, 88 (1977), 764–68.

⁹²G. Y. Craig, D. B. McIntyre and C. D. Waterston, James Hutton's Theory of the Earth: The Lost Drawings (Edinburgh, 1978).

⁹³J. F. Dewey, I. G. Gass, G. B. Curry, N. B. W. Harris and A. M. C. Şengör, ‘Allochthonous Terranes’, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, London, 331 (1990), 455–647.

⁹⁴A. M. C., Şengör, ‘Lithotectonic Terranes and the Plate Tectonic Theory of Orogeny: A Critique of the Principles of Terrane Analysis’, in Terrane Analysis of China and the Pacific Rim, edited by T. J. Wiley, D. G. Howell and F. L. Wong (Houston, TX, 1990), XIII, pp. 9–44.

⁹⁵I thank Professor Trümpy for the information on Peter Ziegler.

⁹⁶S. J. Gould, Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History (New York, 1989). Gould's comment quoted by Oldroyd occurs on p.154 of Gould's book.

⁹⁷K. Burke, J. F. Dewey and W. S. F. Kidd, ‘Dominance of Horizontal Movements, Arc and Microcontinental Collisions during the Later Permobile Regime’, in The Early History of the Earth, edited by B. F. Windley (London, 1976), pp. 113–29.

⁹⁸Oldroyd tells the readers of the origin of the term olistostrome (p. 201) but does not say that in the type locality, the olistostromes that Flores reported are really mélanges, which is why Kenneth Jinghwa Hsü suggested that the term olistostrome should be abandoned. This does not mean that significant debris flows do not occur and create chaotic conditions. But then, they should be called debris flows, and not olistostromes. See K. J. Hsü, ‘Melange and Melange Tectonics of Taiwan’, Proceedings of the Geological Society of China, 31 (1988), 87–91. In the light of Hsü's paper, Oldroyd should perhaps have informed his readers that the type locality had been reinterpreted in the light of new work and concepts. When Flores coined the term, the concept of mélange was hardly known outside Britain and Switzerland—and in Switzerland, it was known almost entirely because of Augusto Gansser's work in Iran. See A. Gansser, ‘New Aspects of the Geology of Central Iran’, Proceedings of the Fourth World Petroleum Congress (1955) Section I/A/5, Paper 2, 279–300; and there was certainly no plate tectonics involved. To avoid any misunderstanding, I note that it is easy to distinguish a mélange from a debris flow, provided that the latter is not too badly deformed. If a debris flow is repeatedly sheared and torn from its original locality so as to make it impossible to relate its included blocks to their places of origin, then it cannot be distinguished from a mélange. This seems to be in part the problem in the Skiddaws. Oldroyd's photograph of these rocks (figure 15.3, p. 201) does not show clearly what it is supposed to show.

⁹⁹D. McKenzie, ‘Some Remarks on the Development of Sedimentary Basins’, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 40 (1978), 25–32.

¹⁰⁰Hopkins was one of the earliest geophysicists apart from the great geodesists of the eighteenth and the nineteenth centuries, who founded geophysics. His ‘physical geology’ can convey the same meaning as our current geophysics. See W. Hopkins, ‘Researches in Physical Geology’, Transactions of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 6 (1936), 1–84.

¹⁰¹P. S. Pallas, ‘Tableau physique et topographique de la tauride suivi d'observations sur la formation des montagnes, et les changemens arrivés à notre globe par le Professeur Pallas, pour faire suite à son voyage en Russie’ in Voyage de Pallas (Paris, An VII [1796]), IX. Originally published in 1777. For an English translation and assessment, see A. V. Carozzi and M. Carozzi, ‘Reevaluation of Pallas’ Theory of the Earth (1778)’, Archives des sciences, 44 (1991), Fasc. 1.

¹⁰²L. von Buch, ‘Ueber die Verbreitung grosser Alpengeschiebe’, Poggendorff's Annalen der Physik und Chemie, 9 (1827), 575–88. Reprinted in Leopold von Buch's Gesammelte Schriften, edited by J. Ewald, J. Roth and W. Dames (Berlin, 1887), III, 659–68.

¹⁰³A. Geikie, Life of Sir Roderick I. Murchison, Based on his Journals and Letters (London, 1875), II, 75; for another account of von Buch's catastrophist ideas, see M. Semper, Die Geologischen Studien Goethes (Leipzig, 1914), pp. 184–88.

¹⁰⁴There is a proof-reading error in the name of the great book by Penck and Brückner in the references (p. 312) (Die Alpen im Eiszeitalter, 1901–1909). The final r of Eiszeitalter has been omitted.

¹⁰⁵K. R. Popper, ‘Epistemology Without a Knowing Subject’ in K. R. Popper, Objective Knowledge (Oxford, 1979), pp. 106–52; idem, The Open Universe—An Argument for Indeterminism: from the Postscript to the Logic of Scientific Discovery, edited by W. W. Bartley (London, 1982), esp. Addendum I.

¹⁰⁶E. Schrödinger, Nature and the Greeks (Cambridge, 1954), p. 71.