Conclusion on Contributions of America to Theories of Orogeny
The sciences arose in Europe, but those which treated of the earth were still in their infancy when transplanted to America. The first comprehensive ideas on the nature of mountain structures arose in Great Britain and France. These ideas served as a guide and stimulus to observation in the recognition of deformations in the strata of the Appalachian system. Since 1840, however, America has ceased to be a pupil in this field of research but has joined as an equal with the two older countries. New ideas have been contributed, new and striking illustrations cited, first by the scientists of one nation, next by those of another. The composite mass of knowledge has grown as a common possession. Nevertheless, a review of the progress since 1840 as measured by the contribution of new ideas shows on the whole America at least equal to its intellectual rivals, and at certain times actually the leader. This is true of the science of geology as a whole and also of the subdivision of orogeny.
Thus far no mention has been made of German geologists, with the exception of Suess, an Austrian. German geology is voluminous and the names of many well-known geologists could be cited. But this article has sought to trace the origin and growth of fundamental ideas. The Germans have been assiduous observers of detail; preeminent as systematizers and classifiers, seldom originators. Even petrology, which might be regarded as their especial field, was transplanted from Great Britain. In the science of mountains they have followed in their fundamental ideas especially the French.
Turning to the mediums of publication through which this progress of knowledge in earth structures has been recorded, the American Journal of Science stands foremost as the only continuous record for the whole century in American literature, fulfilling for this country what the Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society has done for Great Britain since 1845, and the Bulletin de la Société Géologique for France since 1830.
Notes
78. H. D. Rogers, Geology of New Jersey, Final Report, p. 115, 1840.
79. H. D. Rogers, Geology of Pennsylvania, vol. 2, pt. II, pp. 761, 762, 1858.
80. Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences, 1810; quoted by G. P. Merrill in Contributions to the History of North American geology, Ann. Rpt. Smithsonian Institution for 1904, p. 216.
81. A Sketch of the geology, mineralogy, and scenery of the regions contiguous to the river Connecticut; with a geological map and drawings of organic remains; and occasional botanical notices, the Journal, 6, 1–86, 201–236, 1823; 7, 1–30, 1824.
82. Clarence King, U. S. Geol. Exploration of the Fortieth Parallel, vol. 1, pp. 16, 44–48, 1878.
83. Illustrations of the Huttonian Theory of the Earth, pp. 219–238, 1802.
84. Robert Jameson, Elements of Geognosy, pp. 55–57, 1808.
85. G. P. Merrill, Contributions to the History of American Geology. Report of the U. S. National Museum for 1904, p. 328.
86. H. D. Rogers, Geology of Pennsylvania, vol. 2, p. 916, 1858.
87. James Hall, Natural History of New York, Paleontology, vol. 3, pp. 51–73, 1859.
88. The Journal, 5, 423–443, 474, 475; 6, 6–14, 104–115, 161–172, 304, 381, 382, 1873.
89. C. R. Van Hise, Principles of North American Pre-Cambrian Geology, U. S. Geol. Surv., 16th Ann. Report, pt. I, pp. 607–612, 1896.
90. W. N. Rice, On the use of the words synclinorium and anticlinorium, Science, 23, 286, 287, 1906.
91. C. E. Dutton, Critical observations on theories of the earth’s physical evolution, The Penn Monthly, May and June, 1876.
92. B. Willis, Research in China, vol. 2, 1907.
93. Joseph Barrell, Science, 39, 259, 260, 1909; Jour. Geol., 22, 672–683, 1914.
94. T. C. Chamberlin, Geology, vol. 1, pp. 541, 542, 1904.
95. W. M. Davis, The geological dates of origin of certain topographic forms on the Atlantic slope of the United States, Geol. Soc. Am. Bull., 2, 541–542, 545–586, 1891.