Part 2

Let me, in conclusion, give one further illustration of the close inter-dependence of the two sciences of which I am speaking. One of the subjects treated of by Physical Geography is the present geographical distribution of plants and animals. The land-surface of the globe has been mapped out into so many biological regions, each of which is characterised by its special fauna and flora. The greatest changes in the flora and fauna of a continent are met with as we pass from south to north, or _vice versa_. Proceeding in the direction of the latitude, the changes encountered are much less striking. Now, these facts are readily explained by the physical geographer, who points out that the distribution is due chiefly to climatic conditions--a conclusion which is obvious enough. But when we go into details we find that mere latitude will not account for all the phenomena. Take, for example, the case of the Scandinavian flora of our own Continent. It is true that this flora is largely confined to northern latitudes; but isolated colonies occur in our own mountains and in the mountains of middle and southern Europe. How are these to be accounted for? The physical geographer says that the plants grow there simply because they obtain at high levels in low latitudes the favourable climatic conditions underneath which they flourish at low levels in high latitudes. He therefore concludes that the distribution of life-forms is due to varying climatic and physical conditions. But if we ask him how those curious colonies of foreigners come to be planted on our mountains, he cannot tell. To get our answer we must come to the geologist; and he will explain that they are, as it were, living fossils--monuments of former great physical and climatic changes. He will prove to us that the climate of Europe was at a recent geological period so cold that the Scandinavian flora spread south into middle Europe, where it occupied the low grounds. When the climate became milder, then the northern invaders gradually retired--the main body migrating back to the north--while some stragglers, retreating before the stronger Germanic flora, took shelter in the mountains, whither the latter could not or would not follow, and so there our Scandinavians remain, the silent witnesses of a stupendous climatic revolution. Now, all the world over, plants and animals have similar wonderful tales to tell of former geographical changes. The flora and fauna of our country, for example, prove that the British Islands formed part of the Continent at a very recent geological period; and so, from similar evidence, we know that not long ago Europe was joined on to Africa. On the other hand, the facts connected with the present distribution of life demonstrate that some areas, such as Australia, have been separated from the nearest continental land for vastly prolonged periods of time.

It would be a very easy matter to adduce many further illustrations to show how close is the connection between the studies of the physical geographer and the geologist. I do not indeed exaggerate when I say that no one can hope to become a geologist who is not well versed in Physical Geography; nor, on the other hand, can the physical geographer possibly dispense with the aid of Geology. The two subjects are as closely related and interwoven, the one with the other, as History is with Political Geography. I do not see therefore how educationists who have admitted the great importance of Physical Geography as a branch of general education, can logically exclude Geology as a subject of instruction in schools. Already, indeed, it has been introduced by many teachers, and I am confident that ere long it will be as generally taught as Physical Geography. I would not, however, present the subject to young people as a lesson to be learned from books. A good teacher should be able to dispense with these helps, or rather hindrances--for such they really are to a young beginner. His pupils ought to have previously studied the subject of Physical Geography, and if they have been well taught they ought to have already acquired no mean store of geological knowledge. They ought, in fact, to have learned a good deal about the great forces which are continually modifying the surface of the globe, and what they have now to do is to study more particularly the results which have followed from the constant operation of those forces. We shall suppose, for example, that the teacher has described how rivers erode their channels, and waves tend to cut back a coast-line, and how the products of erosion, consisting of gravel, sand, and mud, are distributed along river-valleys and accumulated in lakes and seas. He now exhibits to his class good-sized fragments of conglomerate, sandstone, and shale, and points out how each of these rocks is of essentially the same character, and must therefore have had the same origin, as modern sedimentary accumulations. His pupils should be encouraged to examine the rocks of their own neighbourhood, whether exhibited in natural sections or artificial exposures, and to compare these with the products of modern geological action. One hour's instruction in the field is, in fact, worth twenty hours of reading or listening to lectures. Knowledge at first hand is what is wanted. There are many excellent popular or elementary treatises dealing with Historical Geology, and these have their uses, and may be read with profit as well as pleasure. But the mere reading of such books, it is needless to say, will never make us geologists. They help no doubt to store the mind with interesting and entertaining knowledge, but they do not cultivate the faculties of observation and reasoning. And unless geology is so taught as to accomplish this result, I do not see why it should enter into any school curriculum. Further, I would remark that, however interesting a geological treatise may be, it cannot possibly stimulate the imagination as the practical study of the science is bound to do. One may put into the hands of a youth a clear and well-written description of some particular fossiliferous limestone, and he may by dint of slavish toil be able to repeat verbatim all that he has read. That is how a good deal of book-knowledge of science is acquired. Only think, however, of the drudgery it involves--the absolute waste of time and energy. But let us illustrate our lesson by means of a lump of the limestone itself; let us show him the character of the rock and the nature of its fossil contents, and his difficulties disappear. Better still--let us take him, if we can, into a limestone quarry, and he will be a dull boy indeed if he fails fully to understand what limestone is, or to realise the fact that the rock he is looking at accumulated slowly, like existing oceanic formations, at the bottom of a sea that teemed with animal life. It is unnecessary, however, that I should illustrate this subject further. I would only repeat that the beginner should be taught from the very first to use his own eyes, and to draw logical conclusions from the facts which he observes. Trained after this manner, he would acquire, not only a precise and definite knowledge of what geological data really are, but he would learn also how to interpret those data. He would become familiar, in fact, with the guiding principles of geological inquiry.

How much or how little of Historical Geology should be given in schools will depend upon circumstances. Great care, however, should be taken to avoid wearying the youthful student with strings of mere names. What good is gained by learning to repeat the names of fifty or a hundred fossils, if you cannot recognise any one of these when it is put into your hand? With young beginners I should not attempt anything of that kind. If the neighbourhood chanced to be rich in fossils, I should take my pupils out on Saturday to the sections where they were found, and let them ply their hammers and collect specimens for themselves. I should describe no fossils which they had not seen and handled. Of the more remarkable forms of extinct animals and plants, which are often represented by only fragmentary remains, I should exhibit drawings showing the creatures as they have been restored by the labours of comparative anatomists. Such restorations and ideal views of geological scenes like those given by Heer, Dana, Saporta, and others, convey far more vivid impressions of the life of a geological period than the most elaborate description. In fine, the story of our earth should be told much in the same manner as Scott wrote the history of Scotland for his grandson. There is no more reason for requiring the juvenile student to drudge through minute geological data before introducing him to the grand results of geological investigation, than there is for compelling him to study the manuscripts in our Record Offices before allowing him to read the history which has been drawn from these and similar sources of information. It is enough if at the beginning of his studies he has already learned the general nature of geological evidence and the method of its interpretation. Provided with such a stock of geological knowledge as I have indicated, our youth would leave school with some intelligent appreciation of existing physical conditions, and a not inadequate conception of world-history.

II.

The Physical Features of Scotland.[B]

[B] _Scottish Geographical Magazine_, vol. i., 1885.

Scotland, like "all Gaul," is divided into three parts, namely, the Highlands, the Central Lowlands, and the Southern Uplands. These, as a correctly drawn map will show, are natural divisions, for they are in accordance not only with the actual configuration of the surface, but with the geological structure of the country. The boundaries of these principal districts are well defined. Thus, an approximately straight or gently undulating line taken from Stonehaven, in a south-west direction, along the northern outskirts of Strathmore to Glen Artney, and thence through the lower reaches of Loch Lomond to the Firth of Clyde at Kilcreggan, marks out with precision the southern limits of the Highland area and the northern boundary of the Central Lowlands. The line that separates the Central Lowlands from the Southern Uplands is hardly so prominently marked throughout its entire course, but it follows precisely the same north-east and south-west trend, and may be traced from Dunbar along the base of the Lammermoor and Moorfoot Hills, the Lowthers, and the hills of Galloway and Carrick, to Girvan. In each of the two mountain-tracts--the Highlands and the Southern Uplands--areas of low-lying land occur, while in the intermediate Central Lowlands isolated prominences and certain well-defined belts of hilly ground make their appearance. The statement, so frequently repeated in class-books and manuals of geography, that the mountains of Scotland consist of three (some writers say five) "ranges" is erroneous and misleading. The original author of this strange statement probably derived his ignorance of the physical features of the country from a study of those antiquated maps upon which the mountains of poor Scotland are represented as sprawling and wriggling about like so many inebriated centipedes and convulsed caterpillars. Properly speaking, there is not a true mountain-range in the country. If we take this term, which has been very loosely used, to signify a linear belt of mountains--that is, an elevated ridge notched by cols or "passes" and traversed by transverse valleys--then in place of "three" or "five" such ranges we might just as well enumerate fifty or sixty, or more, in the Highlands and Southern Uplands. Or, should any number of such dominant ridges be included under the term "mountain-range," there seems no reason why all the mountains of the country should not be massed under one head and styled the "Scottish Range." A mountain-range, properly so called, is a belt of high ground which has been ridged up by earth-movements. It is a fold, pucker, or wrinkle in the earth's crust, and its general external form coincides more or less closely with the structure or arrangement of the rock-masses of which it is composed. A mountain-range of this characteristic type, however, seldom occurs singly, but is usually associated with other parallel ranges of the same kind--the whole forming together what is called a "mountain-chain," of which the Alps may be taken as an example. That chain consists of a vast succession of various kinds of rocks, which at one time were disposed in horizontal layers or strata. But during subsequent earth-movements those horizontal beds were compressed laterally, squeezed, crumpled, contorted, and thrown, as it were, into gigantic undulations and sharper folds and plications. And, notwithstanding the enormous erosion or denudation to which the long parallel ridges or ranges have been subjected, we can yet see that the general contour of these corresponds in large measure to the plications or foldings of the strata. This is well shown in the Jura, the parallel ranges and intermediate hollows of which are formed by undulations of the folded strata--the tops of the long hills coinciding more or less closely with the arches, and the intervening hollows with the troughs. Now folded, crumpled, and contorted rock-masses are common enough in the mountainous parts of Scotland, but the configuration of the surface rarely or never coincides with the inclination of the underlying strata. The mountain-crests, so far from being formed by the tops of great folds of the strata, frequently show precisely the opposite kind of structure. In other words, the rocks, instead of being inclined away from the hill-tops like the roof of a house from its central ridge, often dip into the mountains. When they do so on opposite sides the strata of which the mountains are built up seem arranged like a pile of saucers, one within another.

There is yet another feature which brings out clearly the fact that the slopes of the surface have not been determined by the inclination of the strata. The main water-parting that separates the drainage-system of the west from that of the east of Scotland does not coincide with any axis of elevation. It is not formed by an anticlinal fold or "saddleback." In point of fact it traverses the strata at all angles to their inclination. But this would not have been the case had the Scottish mountains consisted of a chain of true mountain-ranges. Our mountains, therefore, are merely monuments of denudation, they are the relics of elevated plateaux which have been deeply furrowed and trenched by running water and other agents of erosion. A short sketch of the leading features presented by the three divisions of the country will serve to make this plain.

* * * * *

The Highlands.--The southern boundary of this, the most extensive of the three divisions, has already been defined. The straightness of that boundary is due to the fact that it coincides with a great line of fracture of the earth's crust--on the north or Highland side of which occur slates, schists, and various other hard and tough rocks, while on the south side the prevailing strata are sandstones, etc., which are not of so durable a character. The latter, in consequence of the comparative ease with which they yield to the attacks of the eroding agents--rain and rivers, frost and ice--have been worn away to a greater extent than the former, and hence the Highlands, along their southern margin, abut more or less abruptly upon the Lowlands. Looking across Strathmore from the Sidlaws or the Ochils, the mountains seem to spring suddenly from the low grounds at their base, and to extend north-east and south-west, as a great wall-like rampart. The whole area north and west of this line may be said to be mountainous, its average elevation being probably not less than 1500 feet above the sea.

A glance at the contoured or the shaded sheets of the Ordnance Survey's map of Scotland will show better than any verbal description the manner in which our Highland mountains are grouped. It will be at once seen that to apply the term "range" to any particular area of those high grounds is simply a misuse of terms. Not only are the mountains not formed by plications and folds, but they do not even trend in linear directions. It is true that a well-trained eye can detect certain differences in the form and often in the colouring of the mountains when these are traversed from south-east to north-west. Such differences correspond to changes in the composition and structure of the rock-masses, which are disposed or arranged in a series of broad belts and narrower bands, running from south-west to north-east across the whole breadth of the Highlands. Each particular kind of rock gives rise to a special configuration, or to certain characteristic features. Thus, the mountains that occur within a belt of slate, often show a sharply cut outline, with more or less pointed peaks and somewhat serrated ridges--the Aberuchill Hills, near Comrie, are an example. In regions of gneiss and granite the mountains are usually rounded and lumpy in form. Amongst the schists, again, the outlines are generally more angular. Quartz-rock often shows peaked and jagged outlines; while each variety of rock has its own particular colour, and this in certain states of the atmosphere is very marked. The mode in which the various rocks yield to the "weather"--the forms of their cliffs and corries--these and many other features strike a geologist at once; and therefore, if we are to subdivide the Highland mountains into "ranges," a geological classification seems the only natural arrangement that can be followed. Unfortunately, however, our geological lines, separating one belt or "range" from another, often run across the very heart of great mountain-masses. Our "ranges" are distinguished from each other simply by superficial differences of feature and structure. No long parallel hollows separate a "range" of schist-mountains from the succeeding "ranges" of quartz-rock, gneiss, or granite. And no degree of careful contouring could succeed in expressing the niceties of configuration just referred to, unless the maps were on a very large scale indeed. A geological classification or grouping of the mountains into linear belts cannot therefore be shown upon any ordinary orographical map. Such a map can present only the relative heights and disposition of the mountain-masses, and these last, in the case of the Highlands, as we have seen, cannot be called "ranges" without straining the use of that term. Any wide tract of the Highlands, when viewed from a commanding position, looks like a tumbled ocean in which the waves appear to be moving in all directions. One is also impressed with the fact that the undulations of the surface, however interrupted they may be, are broad--the mountains, however they may vary in detail according to the character of the rocks, are massive, and generally round-shouldered and often somewhat flat-topped, while there is no great disparity of height amongst the dominant points of any individual group. Let us take, for example, the knot of mountains between Loch Maree and Loch Torridon. There we have a cluster of eight pyramidal mountain-masses, the summits of which do not differ much in elevation. Thus in Liathach two points reach 3358 feet and 3486 feet; in Beinn Alligin there are also two points reaching 3021 feet and 3232 feet respectively; in Beinn Dearg we have a height of 2995 feet; in Beinn Eighe are three dominant points--3188 feet, 3217 feet, and 3309 feet. The four pyramids to the north are somewhat lower--their elevations being 2860 feet, 2801 feet, 2370 feet, and 2892 feet. The mountains of Lochaber and the Monadhliath Mountains exhibit similar relationships; and the same holds good with all the mountain-masses of the Highlands. No geologist can doubt that such relationship is the result of denudation. The mountains are monuments of erosion--they are the wreck of an old table-land--the upper surface and original inclination of which are approximately indicated by the summits of the various mountain-masses and the direction of the principal water-flows. If we in imagination fill up the valleys with the rock-material which formerly occupied their place, we shall in some measure restore the general aspect of the Highland area before its mountains began to be shaped out by Nature's saws and chisels.

It will be observed that while streams descend from the various mountains to every point in the compass, their courses having often been determined by geological structure, etc., their waters yet tend eventually to collect and flow as large rivers in certain definite directions. These large rivers flow in the direction of the average slope of the ancient table-land, while the main water-partings that separate the more extensive drainage-areas of the country mark out, in like manner, the dominant portions of the same old land-surface. The water-parting of the North-west Highlands runs nearly north and south, keeping quite close to the western shore, so that nearly all the drainage of that region flows inland. The general inclination of the North-west Highlands is therefore easterly towards Glenmore and the Moray Firth. In the region lying east of Glenmore the average slopes of the land are indicated by the directions of the rivers Spey, Don, and Tay. These two regions--the North-west and South-east Highlands--are clearly separated by the remarkable depression of Glenmore, which extends through Loch Linnhe, Loch Lochy, and Loch Ness, and the further extension of which towards the north-east is indicated by the straight coast-line of the Moray Firth as far as Tarbat Ness. Now, this long depression marks a line of fracture and displacement of very great geological antiquity. The old plateau of the Highlands was fissured and split in two--that portion which lay to the north-west sinking along the line of fissure to a great but at present unascertained depth. Thus the waters that flowed down the slopes of the north-west portion of the broken plateau were dammed by the long wall of rock on the "up-cast," or south-east side of the fissure, and compelled to flow off to north-east and south-west along the line of breakage. The erosion thus induced sufficed in the course of time to hollow out Glenmore and all the mountain-valleys that open upon it from the west.

The inclination of that portion of the fissured plateau which lay to the south-east is indicated, as already remarked, by the trend of the principal rivers. It was north-east in the Spey district, nearly due east in the area drained by the Don, east and south-east in that traversed by the Tay and its affluents, westerly and south-westerly in the district lying east of Loch Linnhe.[C] Thus, a line drawn from Ben Nevis through the Cairngorm and Ben Muich Dhui Mountains to Kinnaird Point passes through the highest land in the South-east Highlands, and probably indicates approximately the dominant portion of the ancient plateau. North of that line the drainage is towards the Moray Firth; east of it the rivers discharge to the North Sea; while an irregular winding line, drawn from Ben Nevis eastward through the Moor of Rannoch and southward to Ben Lomond, forms the water-parting between the North Sea and the Atlantic, and doubtless marks another dominant area of the old table-land.

[C] The geological reader hardly requires to be reminded that many of the minor streams would have their courses determined, or greatly modified, by the geological structure of the ground. Thus, such streams often flow along the "strike" and other "lines of weakness," and similar causes, doubtless, influenced the main rivers during the gradual excavation of their valleys.