Part 36

These conclusions seem to me to be strongly supported by the evidence of ice-action during Tertiary times. The gigantic erratics of the Alpine Eocene do not appear to have been derived from the Alps, but rather from the Archæan area of southern Bohemia. The strata in which they occur are, for the most part, unfossiliferous; they contain only fucoidal remains, and are presumably marine. How is it possible to account for the appearance of these erratics in marine deposits in central Europe at a time when, as evidenced by the Eocene flora and fauna the climate was warm? Are we to infer the former existence of an extremely lofty range of Bohemian Alps which has since vanished? Is it not more probable that here, too, we have evidence of a lowering of the snow-line, induced by cosmical causes, which brought about the appearance of snow-fields and glaciers in a mountain-tract of much less elevation than would have been required in the absence of high eccentricity of the orbit? If it be objected that such cosmical causes must have had some effect upon the distribution of life, I reply that very probably they had, although not to any extreme extent. The researches of Mr. Starkie Gardner have shown that the flora of the English Eocene affords distinct evidence of climatic changes. But as the geographical conditions of that period precluded the possibility of extensive glaciation, and could only, at the most, have induced local glaciers to appear in elevated mountain-regions, it seems idle to cite the non-occurrence of erratics and morainic accumulations in the Eocene of England and France as an argument against the application of Croll's theory to the case of the erratics of the Flysch. I repeat, then, that under the geographical conditions of the Eocene, all the more obvious effects likely to have resulted from the passage of a period of high eccentricity would be the appearance of a few local glaciers, the existence of which could have had no more influence on the climate of adjacent lowlands than is notable in similar circumstances in our own day. It is absurd, therefore, to expect to find evidence in Eocene strata of as strongly contrasted climates as those of the glacial and interglacial deposits of the Pleistocene. There must, doubtless, have been alternations of climate in our hemisphere; but these would consist simply of passages from warm to somewhat cooler conditions--just such changes, in fact, as are suggested by the plants of the English Eocene.

The evidence of ice-action in the Miocene strata is even more striking than that of which I have just been speaking. The often-cited case of the erratics of the Superga near Turin I need do little more than mention. These erratics were undoubtedly carried by icebergs, calved from Alpine glaciers at a time when northern Italy was largely submerged. The erratic deposits are unfossiliferous, and are underlaid and overlaid by fossiliferous strata, in none of which are any erratics to be found. What is the meaning of these intercalated glacial accumulations? Can we believe it possible that the Miocene glaciers were enabled to reach the sea in consequence of a sudden movement of elevation, which must have been confined to the Alps themselves? Then, if this be so, we must go a step further, and suppose that, after some little time, the Alps were again suddenly depressed, so that the glaciers at once ceased to reach the sea-coast. For, as Dr. Croll has remarked, "had the lowering of the Alps been effected by the slow process of denudation, it must have taken a long course of ages to have lowered them to the extent of bringing the glacial state to a close." And we should, in such a case, find a succession of beds indicating a more or less protracted continuance of glacial conditions, and not one set of erratic accumulations intercalated amongst strata, the organic remains in which are clearly suggestive of a warm climate. The occurrence of erratics in the Miocene of Italy is all the more interesting from the fact that in the Miocene of France and Spain similar evidence of ice-action is forthcoming.

Opponents of Dr. Croll's theory have made much of Baron Nordenskiöld's statement that he could find no trace of former glacial action in any of the fossiliferous formations within the Arctic regions. He is convinced that "an examination of the geognostic condition, and an investigation of the fossil flora and fauna of the polar lands, show no signs of a glacial era having existed in those parts before the termination of the Miocene period." Well, as we have seen, there is no reason to believe that the geographical conditions in our hemisphere, at any time previous to the close of the Pliocene period, could have induced glacial conditions comparable to those of the Pleistocene Ice Age. The strata referred to by Nordenskiöld, are, for the most part, of marine origin, and their faunas are sufficient to show us that the Arctic seas were formerly temperate and genial. If any ice existed then, it could only have been in the form of glaciers on elevated lands. And it is quite possible that these, during periods of high eccentricity, may have descended to the sea and calved their icebergs; and, if so, erratics may yet be found embedded here and there in the Arctic fossiliferous formations, although Nordenskiöld failed to see them. One might sail all round the Palæozoic coast-lines of Scotland without being able to observe erratics in the strata, and yet, as we know, these have been encountered in the interior of the country. The wholesale scattering of erratics at any time previous to the Pleistocene, must have been exceptional even in arctic regions, and consequently one is not surprised that they do not everywhere stare the observer in the face.

The general conclusion, then, to which I think we may reasonably come, is simply this:--That geological climate has been determined chiefly by geographical conditions. So long as the lands of the globe were discontinuous and of relatively small extent, warm ocean-currents reaching polar regions produced a general uniformity of temperature--the climate of the terrestrial areas being more or less markedly insular in character. Under these conditions, the sea would nowhere be frozen. But when the land-masses became more and more consolidated, when owing to the growth of the continents the warm ocean-currents found less ready access to arctic regions, then the temperature of those regions was gradually lowered, until eventually the seas became frost-bound, and the lands were covered with snow and ice. But while the chief determining cause of climate has been the relative distribution of land and water, it is impossible to doubt that during periods of high eccentricity of the orbit, the climate must have been modified to a greater or less extent. In our own day the geographical conditions are such that, were eccentricity to attain a high value, the climate of the Pleistocene would be reproduced, and our hemisphere would experience a succession of alternating cold and genial epochs.

But in earlier stages of the world's history, the geographical conditions were not of a kind to favour the accumulation of vast ice-fields. During a period of extreme eccentricity, there would probably be fluctuations of temperature in high latitudes; but nothing like the glacial and interglacial epochs of the Pleistocene could have occurred. At most, there would be a general lowering of the temperature, sufficient to render the climate of arctic seas and lands somewhat cooler, and probably to induce the appearance in suitable places of local glaciers; and, owing to precession of the equinox, these cooler conditions would be followed by a general elevation of the temperature above the normal for the geographical conditions of the period. In Palæozoic and Mesozoic times, the effects of high eccentricity of the orbit appear to have been, in a great measure, neutralised by the geographical conditions, with a possible exception in the Permian period. But in Tertiary times, when the land-masses had become more continuous, the cosmical causes of change referred to must have had greater influence. And I cannot help agreeing with Dr. Croll that the warm climates of the Arctic regions during that era were, to some extent, the result of high eccentricity.

In concluding this discussion, I readily admit that our knowledge of geographical evolution is as yet in its infancy. We have still very much to learn, and no one will venture to dogmatise upon the subject. But I hope I have made it clear that the evidence, so far as it goes, does not justify the confident assertions of Dr. Croll's opponents, that his theory is contradicted by what we know of the climatic conditions of Palæozoic, Mesozoic, and Cainozoic times. On the contrary, it seems to me to gain additional support from the very evidence to which Nordenskiöld and others have appealed.

Note.--The accompanying sketch-maps (Plate IV.) require a few words of explanation. The geology of the world is still so imperfectly known that any attempt at graphic representation of former geographical conditions cannot but be unsatisfactory. The approximate positions of the chief areas of predominant elevation and depression during stated periods of the past may have been ascertained in a general way; but when we try to indicate these upon a map, such provisional reconstructions are apt to suggest a more precise and definite knowledge than is at present attainable. For it must be confessed that there is hardly a line upon the small maps (A, B, C) which might not have been drawn differently. This, of course, is more especially true of South America, Africa, Asia--of large areas of which the geological structure is unknown. But although the boundaries of the land-masses shown upon the maps referred to are thus confessedly provisional, the maps nevertheless bring out the main fact of a gradual growth and consolidation of the land-areas--a passage from insular to continental conditions. I need hardly say this is no novel idea. It was clearly set forth by Professor Dana upwards of forty years ago (_Silliman's Journal_, 1846, p. 352; 1847, pp. 176, 381), and it received some years later further illustration from Professor Guyot, who insisted upon the insular character of the climate during Palæozoic times (_The Earth and Man_, 1850). It must be understood that the maps (A, B, C) are not meant to exhibit the geographical conditions of the world at any one point of time. In Map A, for example, the area coloured blue was not necessarily covered by sea at any particular stage in the Palæozoic era. It simply represents approximately the regions tended. But, as already stated, numerous oscillations of level occurred in Palæozoic times, so that many changes in the distribution of land and water must have taken place down to the close of the Permian period. The land-areas shown upon the map are simply those which appear to have been more or less persistent through all the geographical changes referred to. Similar remarks apply to the other maps representing the more or less persistent land-areas of Mesozoic and Tertiary times. Thus, for example, there are reasons for believing that Madagascar was joined to the mainland of Africa at some stage of the Mesozoic era, but was subsequently insulated before Tertiary times. Again, as Mesozoic era a land-connection obtained between New Zealand and Australia. The same naturalist also points out that a chain of islands, now represented by numerous islets and shoals, served in Tertiary times to link Madagascar to India. Map D shows the areas of predominant elevation and depression. The area coloured brown represents the great continental plateau, which extends downwards to 1000 fathoms or so below the present sea-level. The area tinted blue is the oceanic depression. From the present distribution of plants and animals, we infer that considerable tracts which are now submerged have formerly been dry land--some of these changes having taken place in very recent geological times. And the same conclusions are frequently suggested by geological evidence. There can be little doubt that Europe in Tertiary times extended further into the Northern Ocean than it does now. And it is quite possible that in the Mesozoic and Palæozoic eras considerable land-areas may likewise have appeared here and there in those northern regions which are at present under water. There is, indeed, hardly any portion of the continental plateau which is now submerged that may not have been land at some time or other. But after making all allowance for such possibilities, the geological evidence, as far as it goes, nevertheless leads to the conclusion that upon the whole a wider expense of primeval continental plateau has come to the surface since Tertiary times than was ever exposed during any former period of the world's history.

[Mr. Marcou states (_American Geologist_, 1890, p. 229) that the idea of a gradual growth of land-areas originated with Elie de Beaumont, who was in the habit of showing such maps, and used them in his lectures at Paris as early as 1836. Professor Beudant published three of these same maps for the Jurassic, Cretaceous, and Tertiary seas in his _Cours élémentaire de Géologie_ (1841); and Professor Carl Vogt in his _Lehrbuch der Geologie und Petrefactenkunde_ (1845), which was confessedly based on Elie de Beaumont's lectures during 1844-46, gives four maps of the Carboniferous, Jurassic, Cretaceous, and Tertiary seas.]

XIII.

The Scientific Results of Dr. Nansen's Expedition.[DN]

[DN] From _The Scottish Geographical Magazine_, 1891.

In the Appendix to his most interesting and instructive work, _The First Crossing of Greenland_, Dr. Nansen treats of the scientific results of his remarkable journey. The detailed enumeration of these results, he tells us, would have been out of place in a general account of his expedition, but will appear in due time elsewhere. Hence he confines attention in his present work to such questions as are of most obvious interest, such as the extent, outward form, and elevation of the inland-ice of Greenland. By way of introduction his readers are presented with some account of the geological history of the country, which, although it contains nothing that was not already familiar to geologists, will doubtless prove interesting to others. After indicating that Greenland would appear to be composed almost exclusively of Archæan schists and granitoid eruptive rocks, the author glances at the evidence which the Mesozoic and Cainozoic strata of the west coast have supplied as to the former prevalence of genial climatic conditions. Heer is cited to show that during the formation of the Cretaceous beds the mean temperature of north Greenland was probably between 70° and 72° F., while in later Cainozoic times it could not have been less than 55° F., in 70° N.L. These conclusions are based on the character of the fossil floras. Now the mean annual temperature on the west coast of Greenland, where the relics of these old floras occur, is about 15° F., from which it is inferred that there has been a decrease of 40° since Cainozoic times. In those times, says Dr. Nansen, "the country must have rejoiced in a climate similar to that of Naples, while in the earlier Cretaceous period it must have resembled that of Egypt." He then refers to the well-known fact that, long after the deposition of the Cainozoic beds of Greenland, intensely arctic conditions supervened, when the inland-ice of that country extended much beyond its present limits. This was the Glacial period of geologists, during which all the northern regions of America and Europe, down to what are now temperate latitudes were likewise swathed in ice. Various hypotheses have been advanced in explanation of these strange climatic vicissitudes, and some of them are very briefly discussed by Dr. Nansen. None of the suggested solutions of the problem quite satisfies him; but he appears to look with most favour on the view that great climatic revolutions in what are now polar regions may have resulted from movements of the earth's axis. He admits, however, that there are certain strong objections to this hypothesis, and concludes that we have not yet got any satisfactory explanation to cover all the facts of the case. In discussing the question of a possible wandering of the pole, the author cites certain astronomical observations to show that the position of the axis is even now slowly changing, the movement amounting to half a second in six months. This is not much; but if the change, as he remarks, were to continue at the same rate for 3600 years, the shift would amount to one degree. Thus in a period of no more than 72,000 to 108,000 years Greenland might be brought into the latitude required for the growth of such floras as those of Cainozoic and Mesozoic times. Geologists will readily concede these or longer periods if they be required, but they will have graver doubts than Dr. Nansen as to whether any such great changes in the axis are possible. The astronomical observations referred to, even if they were fully confirmed, do not show that the movement is constant in one direction. They indicated, as he mentions, a slight increase of latitude during the first quarter of 1889, followed in the second quarter of the same year by a decrease, which continued to January, 1890. Since the publication of Professor George Darwin's masterly paper on the influence of geological changes on the earth's axis of rotation, geologists have felt assured that the great climatic revolutions to which the stratified rocks bear witness must be otherwise explained than by a wandering of the pole. Indeed, the geological evidence alone is enough to show that profound climatic changes have taken place while the pole has occupied its present position. Thus, there is no reasonable grounds for doubting that during the Glacial period the pole was just where we find it to-day. For, under existing geographical conditions, could a sufficient lowering of temperature be brought about, snow-fields and ice-sheets would gather and increase over the very same areas as we know were glaciated in Pleistocene times. Still further, we have only to recall the fact that several extreme revolutions of climate supervened during the so-called Glacial period, to see how impossible it is to account for the phenomena by movements of the earth's axis.

If it be true that the great climatic changes of the Pleistocene period did not result from a wandering to and fro of the pole, then it is not at all likely that the Mesozoic and Cainozoic climates of Greenland were induced by any such movement. But does the geological evidence justify us in believing that the climates in Greenland during Cretaceous and Tertiary times really resembled those of Egypt and southern Italy? It may be strongly doubted if it does. Palæontologists, like other mortals, find it hard to escape the influence of environment. They are apt to project the actual present into the past, without, perhaps, fully considering how far they are justified in doing so. Because there occur in Cretaceous and Tertiary strata, within Arctic regions, certain assemblages of plants which find their nearest representatives in southern Italy and Egypt, surely it is rather rash to conclude that Greenland has experienced climates like those now characteristic of Mediterranean lands. All that the evidence really entitles us to assume is simply that the _winter temperature_ of Greenland was formerly much higher than it is now. That great caution is required in comparing past with present climatological conditions may be seen by glancing for a moment at the character of the flora which lived in Europe during the interglacial phase of the Pleistocene period. The plants of that period are for the most part living species, so that while dealing with these we are on safer ground than when we are treating of the floras of periods so far removed from us as those of Tertiary and Cretaceous times. Now, in the Pleistocene flora of Europe we find a strange commingling of species, such as we nowhere see to-day over any equally wide area of the earth's surface. During Pleistocene times many plants which are still indigenous to southern France flourished side by side in that area with species which are no longer seen in the same region; some of these last having retreated because unable to support the cold of winter, while others have retired to the mountains to escape the dryness of the summer. Similar evidence is forthcoming from the Pleistocene accumulations of Italy, northern France, and Germany. In a word, clement winters and relatively cool and humid summers permitted the wide diffusion and intimate association of plants which have now a very different distribution, temperate and southern species formerly flourishing together over vast areas of southern and central Europe. And similarly we find that during the same period the regions in question were tenanted by southern and temperate forms of animal life--elephants, rhinoceroses, and hippopotamuses, together with cervine, bovine, and other forms, not a few of which are still indigenous to our Continent--that ranged from the shores of the Mediterranean up to our own latitudes. We cannot doubt, indeed, that the present geographical distribution of plants and animals differs markedly from anything that has yet been disclosed by the researches of geologists. The climatic conditions of our day are exceptional as compared with those of earlier times, and the occurrence in Greenland of southern types of plants, therefore, does not justify us in concluding that climates like those of southern Italy and Egypt were ever characteristic of arctic regions. It is a low winter temperature rather than a want of great summer heat that restricts the range northward of southern floras. If Greenland could be divested of its inland-ice--if its winter temperature never fell below that of our own island--it would doubtless become clothed in time with an abundant temperate flora.

Judging from what is known of the various floras and faunas that have successively clothed and peopled the world, from Palæozoic down to the close of Cainozoic times, the general climatic conditions of the globe, prior to the Glacial period, would seem to have been prevalently insular rather than continental as they are now. The lands appear to have been formerly much less continuous, and ocean currents from southern latitudes had consequently freer access to high northern regions than is at present possible. In no other way can we account for the facts connected with the geographical distribution and extent of the fossiliferous formations. But are we to infer, from the occurrence of similar assemblages of marine organic remains in arctic, temperate, and tropical latitudes, that the shores of primeval Greenland were washed by waters as warm as those of the tropics? Surely not: an absence of very cold water in the far north is all that we seem justified in assuming. And so, in like manner, the presence in Greenland of fossil floras having the same general facies as those that occur in the corresponding strata of more southern latitudes, does not compel us to believe that conditions at all similar to what are now met with in warm-temperate and sub-tropical lands ever obtained in arctic regions. A relatively high winter temperature alone would permit the range northward of many tribes of plants which are now restricted to southern latitudes. Yet, under the most uniform insular climatic conditions that we can conceive of, there must always have been differences due to latitude--although such differences were never apparently so marked as they are now.