CHAPTER V.

THE TEST OF INCLUDED ORGANISMS.

The second great law of the Stratigraphical Geologist is that fossiliferous strata are identifiable by their included organisms, in other words, that we can tell the geological age of deposits by examination of the fossils contained in them, though the determination of age must be given in more general terms in some cases than in others. Considerable misconception has arisen concerning the value of fossils as indices of age, and it is necessary therefore to discuss the significance of the law of identification of strata by their included organisms at some length.

The comparison between fossils and medals has frequently been made and fossils have well been styled the "Medals of Creation"; and the significance of fossils as guides to the age of deposits may perhaps be made clearer if we pursue this comparison some way. In the first place there is clear indication of a gradual increase in the complexity of organisation of the fossils as one passes from the earlier to the later rocks, and accordingly the general facies of a fauna is likely to furnish a clue to the age of the rocks in which it is found, even though every species or even genus represented in the fauna was previously unknown to science. So an antiquary versed in the evolution of art or metallurgy, might detect the general age of a medal with whose image and superscription he was not acquainted. He would know that a medal struck in iron was formed subsequently to the bronze age, or that one formed of palladium appertained to the present century. But quite apart from any theoretical knowledge, an antiquary would find as the result of accumulated experience that certain medals are characteristic of certain periods; he would learn that the denarius is characteristic of a different period from that indicated by the coin of the Victorian era, even though he had no knowledge of the technicalities of numismatics. The same is the case with the geologist. He may not be influenced by any knowledge of the evolution of faunas and floras, but actual work amongst the rocks will show him that the trilobite is not found with the belemnite or the ichthyosaur with the elephant, save under exceptional circumstances, which only prove the rule, as for instance when worn bones of ichthyosaurs are washed from their proper strata into gravels with elephant-bones.

It must be distinctly understood that the determination of fossils as characteristic of different periods is solely made as the result of experience. No _à priori_ reasoning may give one indication of the actual range in time of a species or genus; no one can say why _Discina_ has a long range in time, whilst that of the closely related _Trematis_ is very limited. This being the case, the greater the mass of evidence which is accumulated as to the range of a fossil, the greater will be the value of that fossil as a clue to the age of the deposit in which it is found. This is so important, that it requires more than mere notice. If a fossil is found in abundance in a group of strata _B_ in any one area, and is not found in an underlying group _A_ or overlying group _C_ in that area after prolonged search, we may confidently speak of the fossil as characteristic of the strata _B_ in that area, though without further work, the value of the fossil as a clue to age in other areas would be unproved. It may nevertheless happen, that after more prolonged search in _A_ or _C_, in the original area a few specimens of the fossil which has been spoken of as characteristic of _B_ may be found in one or other of them, in small quantity. The value of the fossil as one characteristic of _B_ will be slightly diminished, though only slightly, as it is not likely to turn up in numbers in the strata _A_ or _C_ after the prolonged search. Should the fossil be found also to be characteristic of the strata _B_ in areas other than the original one, it becomes of more than local value, and if, after much study it is found to characterise the same strata over wide areas, the cumulative evidence now obtained will render the fossil peculiarly important to the stratigraphical geologist. The detection of characteristic fossils is not quite so simple as might be supposed from the above remarks, for examination of the position of one fossil will not prove the contemporaneity of beds in different places, to prove this, all the evidence at our disposal must be considered, for reasons which will be presently pointed out.

As the result of accumulated knowledge, we can now compile lists of characteristic fossils of the major subdivisions of the strata, which are of world-wide utility and as our knowledge increases, we are enabled to subdivide the strata into minor divisions of more than local value.

_What is a fossil?_ Before discussing the value of fossils as aids to the stratigraphical geologist, it may be well to make a few observations as to what constitutes a fossil. It is difficult to give any concise definition, and as is often the case in geology, an explanatory paragraph is of more value than a mere definition. The term fossil was originally applied to anything dug up from the rocks of the earth's crust, and was used with reference to inorganic objects as well as organic remains, for instance minerals were spoken of as fossils. It is now applied essentially though not exclusively to relics of former organisms, though one still reads of fossil rain-drops, fossil sun-cracks, and so on. Furthermore, the relics need not necessarily be parts of the organism, the track of a worm or a bird's nest if embedded in the strata would be termed a fossil. It is generally agreed that no sharp line can be drawn between recent and fossil organic remains which is based upon the degree of mineralisation (or as it was sometimes termed petrifaction) of the relics, for many true fossils have not undergone mineralisation, subsequent to their entombment.

It has been suggested that the name fossil should be applied to organic remains which have been entombed by some process other than human agency, but this restriction is undesirable. The stone-implement of the river gravels is as genuine a fossil as the ammonite extracted from the chalk, and the human relics of very recent date may give information of a character quite similar to that supplied by other remains, for instance, the occurrence of moa-bones in New Zealand in accumulations below those containing biscuit-tins and jam-pots has been used as a geological argument pointing to the extinction of the moa before the arrival of Europeans in New Zealand. The biscuit-tin here serves all the purposes of a fossil, and there is no valid reason why it should not be spoken of as such.

This statement brings one to consider another method which has been adopted in order to separate fossil organisms from recent ones, namely the time-test. This again is inapplicable, for no line can be drawn between the shell which was buried in yesterday's tidal deposit and that which has lain in the strata through geological ages, and each may be equally useful to the geologist.

Whilst, then, we can give no definition of fossil which is likely to meet with general acceptance, the term can be so used, as not to give rise to any doubts as to its meaning, and it is generally applicable to any organic relics which have been embedded in any deposit or accumulation by any agent human or otherwise.

_Mode of occurrence of fossils._ It will not be out of place to say a few words as to the way in which fossils are found in strata, as beds are often inferred to be unfossiliferous, because of ignorance of methods which should be pursued in searching for organic relics. It is unnecessary to dilate upon the actual modes of preservation of organisms, which is treated of fully in other works. In the first place, it is rash to assert that any deposit is unfossiliferous because no fossils have been found in it, even after prolonged search. The Llanberis slates had been eagerly searched for fossils for many years without result, but that the search was not exhaustive was proved by the discovery of trilobites in them some years ago. Seekers after fossils are rather prone to confine their attention to strata which are already known to be fossiliferous than to pay much attention to those which have hitherto yielded no organic remains.

Some kinds of deposits are more often fossiliferous than others. Limestones which are frequently largely of organic origin, are often rich in remains, and muddy deposits more frequently furnish fossils than those of a purely sandy nature. The difference in the yield is not necessarily due to the original inclusion of more remains in one rock than in another, but is often caused by the obliteration of former relics owing to changes which have taken place in the rocks subsequently to their deposition. No sedimentary rock must be regarded as unfossiliferous, however unfitted it appears for the preservation of fossils. The writer has seen fossils, not only in coarse conglomerates, rocks which frequently contain no traces of organisms, but in deposits composed largely of specular iron ore, and even in intrusive igneous rocks, though in the latter case, the inclusion of fossils was due to circumstances which cannot have occurred with frequency.

In sandy strata, the substance of the fossils has often been completely removed, leaving hollow casts, which may be almost or quite unrecognisable. In these circumstances, much information may be obtained by taking impressions of the casts in modelling wax or some other material. The importance of this process may be judged from the results it yielded to Mr Clement Reid in the case of the fossils of the Pliocene deposits occurring in pipe-like hollows in the Cretaceous rocks of Kent and the discovery of the remarkable reptiles described by Mr E. T. Newton from the Triassic sandstones of Elgin.

In argillaceous rocks which have been affected by the processes producing cleavage, the fossils may be distorted beyond recognition or owing to the difficulty of breaking the rocks along the original planes of deposition, may remain invisible. Under such circumstances, small nodules of sandy or calcareous nature may sometimes be found included in the argillaceous deposits and may perhaps yield fossils. Oftentimes, also, where the argillaceous rock is in close proximity to a harder rock, such as massive grit, the argillaceous rock in close contiguity to the hard rock may escape the impress of cleavage-structure, and fossils may be readily extracted from rocks in this position when not obtainable from other parts of the deposit. It was under these circumstances that the trilobites alluded to above were obtained from the Llanberis slates.

The fossils of calcareous rocks are often very obvious, but difficult to extract, as they break across when the rock is fractured. They are frequently obtainable in a perfect condition when the rock is weathered. Occasionally they may be extracted from certain argillaceous limestones if the limestone be heated to redness, and suddenly plunged into cold water. Fossils are often found in a state which enables them to be readily extracted when a limestone is coarsely crystalline, though they cannot be extracted in a perfect condition when the same limestone is in a different state.

Many microzoa, which are invisible in rocks, even when viewed through a lens, may be found in microscopic sections of calcareous and silicious rocks, and plant structures may be detected under similar circumstances in the case of carbonaceous rocks.

Various special methods of extracting fossils from rocks have been described by different writers, many of which are very complex, and require much time. The mechanical action of the sand-blast and the solvent action of various acids as hydrochloric and hydrofluosilicic have been found of use upon different occasions[11]. The various processes which have been utilised in order to extract and develop fossils can, however, be best learned by information obtainable from curators of palæontological collections, and by actual experience, and there is yet much information to be acquired as to the manner of extracting fossils from various kinds of rocks.

[Footnote 11: For information concerning use of acids see especially Wiman, C. "Ueber die Graptoliten," _Bull. Geol. Inst._, Upsala, No. 4, vol. II. Part II.]

_Relative value of fossils to the Stratigraphical Geologist._ It has been hinted above that no general rule as to the relative value of fossils as guides to the age of strata can be laid down, and that the ascertainment of their relative value is largely the result of actual experience. It may be noted, however, that organisms which possess hard parts are naturally more important to the geologist than those which do not, as few traces of the latter are preserved in the fossil state, and even when preserved are usually too obscure to be of much practical use. Of the organisms which do possess hard parts, different groups have been utilised to a different degree, and one group will be more or less important than another, according to the use to which it is applied. Groups of organisms which have a long range in time are naturally useful for the identification of large subdivisions of the strata, whilst those which have had a shorter range are valuable when separating minor subdivisions.

Again, as the bulk of the sedimentary deposits has been formed beneath the waters of the ocean, relics of marine organisms are naturally more useful than those of freshwater ones. Other things being equal, the more easily the organism is recognisable, and the more abundant are its remains, the greater its value to the stratigraphical geologist, and as the remains of invertebrates are usually found in greater quantities and in more readily recognisable condition than those of the vertebrates, they have been used more extensively as indices of age. Of the invertebrates, the mollusca are often very abundant, their remains are adapted for preservation, and their characteristics have been extensively studied, and accordingly they have been and are of great use to the geologist. Of other groups, the graptolites, corals, echinids, brachiopods, and trilobites have been very largely utilised. The Lower Palæozoic strata have been divided into numerous groups, each characterised by definite forms of graptolites, and a similar use has been made of the ammonites in the case of the Mesozoic rocks. It is not to be inferred that these groups of organisms are naturally more useful than other groups, on account of the extent to which they have been used; we can merely state that they have been proved to be useful as the result of prolonged study; when other groups have received equal attention, they may well be found to be equally useful for the purposes which we have in view.

_Contemporaneity and Homotaxis._ From what has been already stated, it will be recognised that the ages of the various fossiliferous rocks of the geological column[12] in any one area can be identified with greater or less degree of certainty by reference to their included organisms, the various subdivisions being marked by the possession of characteristic fossils, and it will be naturally and rightly inferred that the greater the number of characteristic fossils of any one deposit, the more certain is the identification of that deposit. In practice, geologists are wont to ascertain the age of the strata after consideration of all the fossils found therein, some of which may be actually characteristic whilst many may come up from the strata below, or pass into those above. Having ascertained the order of succession and fossil contents of the strata in various regions, it is the task of the geologist to compare the strata of these two regions, and this task is fraught with considerable difficulty. Much controversy has arisen as to the degree of accuracy with which strata of remote regions can be correlated, and the subject is one which requires full consideration.

[Footnote 12: Although the rocks do not always lie on one another in regular succession, it is often convenient to speak of them as though they did, and as though a column of strata could be carved out in any region consisting of horizontal bands of deposit one above another. We speak of such an ideal arrangement as constituting a 'geological column.']

Suppose that a series of strata which we will call _A_, _B_, and _C_ is found in any one area, each member of which contains characteristic fossils which enable it to be recognised in that area, and we will further suppose that in another area a series of strata _A´_, _B´_, and _C´_ is discovered, of which _A´_ has the fauna of _A_ in the former area, and similarly _B´_ the fauna of _B_, and _C´_ that of _C_.

It cannot be assumed that the stratum _A_ is therefore contemporaneous with _A´_, _B_ with _B´_, and _C_ with _C´_, but on the other hand, it must not be assumed that they are not contemporaneous. This is a statement which requires some comment. It has been urged that if the deposits _A_ and _A´_ in different localities contain the same fauna, this is a proof that the two are not contemporaneous, for some time must have elapsed in order to allow of the migration of the organisms from one area to another, it being justifiably assumed that they did not originate simultaneously in the two areas. But everything depends on the time taken for migration as compared with the period of existence of the fauna. If the former was extremely short as compared with the latter it may be practically ignored, for we might then speak of the strata as contemporaneous, just as a historian would rightly speak of events in the same way which occurred upon the same afternoon, though one might have happened an hour before the other. Let us then glance at the evidence which we have at our disposal, which bears upon this matter.

The objection to identification of strata with similar faunas as contemporaneous was urged by Whewell, Herbert Spencer, and Huxley, and the latter suggested the term Homotaxis or similarity of arrangement as applicable to groups of strata in different areas, in which a similar succession of faunas was traceable, maintaining that though not contemporaneous the strata might be spoken of as homotaxial. Huxley went so far as to assert that "for anything that geology or palæontology are able to show to the contrary, a Devonian fauna and flora in the British Islands may have been contemporaneous with Silurian life in North America, and with a Carboniferous fauna and flora in Africa[13]," a statement which few if any living geologists will endorse. If the statement be true, and the fauna which we speak of as Devonian, when present be always found (as it is) above that which we in Britain know as Silurian and below that which we term Carboniferous, the faunas must have originated independently in the three centres, and disappeared before the appearance of the next fauna, or having originated at the same centre, each must have migrated in the same direction, spread over the world, and become extinct as it reached the point or line from which it started. Suppose for instance a fauna _A_ originates at the meridian of Greenwich, migrates eastward, and dies out again when it once more reaches Greenwich, that _B_ and _C_ do the same, at a later period, then the fauna _B_ will always be found above _A_ and _C_ above _B_, but if _B_ did not become extinct when it reached the Greenwich meridian, it would continue its eastward course, and _C_ having in the meantime started on its first round, the fossils of the fauna _B_ would be found both above and below those of _C_. It will be shown below that cases of recurrence do occur, but nowhere do we find a Silurian fauna above a Devonian one, or a Devonian one above one belonging to the Carboniferous, nor is the fauna of a great group of rocks found in one region above the fauna of another group, and in another region below the same. And this is true not only of the faunas of one major division, such as those of the Silurian and Carboniferous periods, but also of the faunas of many minor subdivisions into which the large ones are separated, for instance we do not find the Llandovery fauna of the Silurian period which in Britain is found below the Wenlock fauna embedded elsewhere in strata above the Wenlock. I have simplified the statement by assuming that the faunas are identical in the different localities, and exactly similar throughout the whole thickness of the containing strata, which is naturally not the case, but the additional complexity does not conceal the truth of what has been stated. In the absence of actual inversion of well-marked faunas, only one explanation is possible, namely, that the time for migration of forms is so short as compared with the entire period during which the forms existed, that it may be practically ignored, and the strata containing similar faunas may be therefore spoken of truthfully as contemporaneous and not merely homotaxial[14].

[Footnote 13: Huxley, T. H. "Geological Contemporaneity and Persistent Types of Life," being the Anniversary Address to the Geological Society for 1862; reprinted in _Lay Sermons, Addresses and Reviews_.]

[Footnote 14: For fuller discussion of this matter see a paper by the Author 'On Homotaxis,' _Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc._, vol. VI. Part II. p. 74.]

_Apparent anomalies in the distribution of fossils._ There are several occurrences which have tended to augment the distrust frequently felt concerning the value of fossils as indices of the age of the beds in which they occur, which may be here considered.

Though the greater number of fossil remains belonged to organisms which lived during the time of accumulation of the deposits in which they are now embedded, this is by no means universally the case, and the occurrence of _remanié_ fossils, which have been derived from deposits more ancient than the ones in which they are now found is far from being a rare event. The existence of remains of this nature in the superficial drifts and river-gravels of our own country has long been recognised, and no one would suppose that the _Gryphæa_ and other shells furnished by these gravels had lived contemporaneously with the species of _Corbicula_, _Unio_ and other molluscs which are part of the true fauna of the gravels. In this case the water-worn nature of the remains is a good index to their origin, but in other cases, it is by no means an infallible guide, for we sometimes find on the one hand that remains of organisms proper to the deposits in which they occur are water-worn, whilst on the other the relics of _remanié_ fossils are not. The now well-known gault fossils of the Cambridge Greensand at the base of the chalk were not always recognised as having been derived from older beds, and there are certain fossils found in nodules in the Cretaceous rocks of Lincolnshire, which still form a subject for difference of opinion, for while some writers maintain that they belong to the deposits in which they are now found, others suppose that the nodules have been washed out of earlier beds.

Occasionally we find forms which occurring in a set of beds _A_ in an area, are absent from the overlying beds _B_, and appear again in the succeeding deposits _C_. Such cases of _recurrence_ are by no means rare, though many supposed instances of recurrence have been recorded as the result of stratigraphical or palæontological errors. The best examples have been noted by Barrande among the Lower Palæozoic deposits of Bohemia. The stage _D_ of Bohemia consists of five 'bandes' or subdivisions, the lowest (_d_ 1), central (_d_ 3) and uppermost (_d_ 5) divisions are mainly argillaceous, whilst the second (_d_ 2) and fourth (_d_ 4) are essentially arenaceous. Some of the forms found in _d_ 1, _d_ 3 and _d_ 5 have not been found in _d_ 2 and _d_ 4. The best-known example is the trilobite _Æglina rediviva_. It is clear that this and other forms did not become extinct during the deposition of the strata of _d_ 2 and _d_ 4, though they may have disappeared temporarily from the Bohemian area, or else lingered on in such diminished numbers that their remains have not been discovered. The range of the organism is in fact right through the deposits of the stage _D_, and the discontinuity of distribution is not a real anomaly; it may be compared to some extent with cases of discontinuous distribution in space. It is needless to remark that the whole fauna does not disappear for a time and then reappear, but only a few out of the many forms which compose it. The comparative rarity of examples of recurrence after long intervals is an indication that the palæontological record as it is termed is not so imperfect as some suppose, for if our knowledge of fossils were very imperfect, we should expect cases of apparent recurrence to be common, as the result of the non-detection of fossils in the intermediate beds. One of the most marked cases of apparent recurrence known some years ago was the reappearance of a genus of trilobite _Ampyx_ in Ludlow rocks, found in the Bala rocks, but not in the Llandovery or Wenlock strata. It has since been discovered in Llandovery beds, and its eventual discovery in beds of Wenlock age may be regarded as certain. A supposed case of recurrence which would have been remarkable, that of the disappearance of _Phillipsia_ in Ordovician rocks, its entire absence in those of Silurian age, and its reappearance in the Devonian, has broken down, for the supposed Ordovician form has been shown to belong to an entirely different group of trilobites from that containing the genus _Phillipsia_, and it has been therefore renamed _Phillipsinella_.

Many apparent anomalies of distribution have been explained as due to migration, but it is doubtful whether any one of these supposed anomalies is actual and not due to errors in determining the position of the beds or the nature of their included fossils. Some of the supposed anomalies have already been shown to be due to error, and the others will almost certainly be cleared up. In speaking of anomalies of distribution, the geologist can only be guided by experience as to what constitutes an anomaly. For instance the existence of a complete fauna in any one place in the beds of a system above that to which it is elsewhere confined would be regarded as anomalous and as probably due to error, whilst the reappearance of several forms in beds of a system higher than that in which they had hitherto been found, could hardly be considered as an anomaly. A geologist would suspect the statement that after the disappearance of an Ordovician fauna in an area and its replacement by a Silurian fauna, the Ordovician fauna reappeared for a time, but would not regard the statement that a Cenomanian fauna partly reappeared in the Chalk Rock with surprise.

The existence of a Silurian fauna in Ordovician times was maintained by Barrande in the case of the Bohemian basin. Lenticular patches of Silurian rocks having the lithological characters of the Silurian strata are found in the Ordovician beds of that region, and they contain fossils specifically identical with those of the Silurian rocks. Barrande explained this appearance as due to the existence of a fauna in other regions resembling the Silurian fauna of Bohemia, during the Ordovician period, when the normal Ordovician fauna of Bohemia inhabited that area. He supposed that in parts of the basin, when favourable conditions arose, _colonies_ of the foreign fauna settled for a time, but did not get a permanent footing in the basin until the commencement of Silurian times. The theory of colonies has now been rejected for the Bohemian area, and the phenomena shown to be due to repetition of strata by folding and faulting, but it is a theory which is again and again advocated in order to explain apparently anomalous phenomena in other areas, and these apparent anomalies which are so explained, must be regarded with grave suspicion.

The various complexities alluded to in the foregoing pages increase the difficulty experienced by the geologist in correlating strata in different areas by their included organisms, but no one of them disproves the possibility of making these correlations, which can be carried on to a greater or less extent according to the nature of the faunas.

A good deal of misconception has arisen concerning the geographical distribution of former faunas, owing to the tendency to compare them exclusively with the littoral faunas of the present day. These littoral faunas have a comparatively limited geographical distribution, the forms of one marine province often differing considerably from those of an adjoining one, and still more widely from one which is remote, so that anyone confronted with the relics of faunas from the existing Australian and European seas, would find no indications furnished by identity of species that the faunas were contemporaneous. Recent researches have shown, however, that the creatures whose remains are deposited at some distance from the coast-line have a much stronger resemblance to one another than the littoral organisms have, if the fauna of two distant areas be compared. It is still a moot point which will be discussed in a later chapter, how far the deep-sea deposits of modern times are represented amongst the strata of the geological column by deposits of similar origin. But it is certain that many of the ancient strata are not littoral deposits, and it will be found that it is by comparison of the faunas of the deeper-water deposits that the geologist correlates the strata of remote regions: where shallow water deposits are formed, the faunas differ markedly in different regions, and these shallow-water forms can only be correlated owing to their occurrence between deeper-water strata. Thus if strata _A_, _B_ and _C_ be found in one area, and the fauna of _A_ and _C_ are deep-water forms, those of _B_ being shallow-water forms, and in another area beds _A´_ contain the same fauna as _A_, and _C´_ the same fauna as _C_ whilst the fauna of _B´_ is different from that of _B_, we can nevertheless correlate the strata _B_ and _B´_ (if they be conformable with the underlying and overlying beds), because of the identity of age of the associated beds in the two areas. It will possibly be found that the strata _A_ and _C_ can be further subdivided into _A_{1}_, _A_{2}_, ... &c. _C_{1}_, _C_{2}_, ... by the existence of minor faunas, which are comparable in the two cases, but such subdivisions may not be established in the case of the beds _B_ and _B´_.

To take actual examples:--The Llandovery beds of Dumfriesshire can be subdivided into several minor divisions each of which can be recognised in the Lake District of England, and to a large extent in Scandinavia and elsewhere, for the deposits in these areas are of deep-water character, and the sub-faunas of the subdivisions are similar in the different areas, but the Llandovery rocks of the Welsh borderland are shallow-water deposits, with a different fauna from that of the deep-water deposits of this age, and can only be stated to be contemporaneous with the Llandovery rocks elsewhere, because the deeper-water faunas of the underlying Bala rocks and overlying Wenlock rocks of the Welsh borders are respectively similar to those of the Bala and Wenlock rocks of the other regions. The shallow-water Llandoveries of the Welsh borders have only been separated into two divisions, upper and lower, and have not been split up into a number of subdivisions, each characterised by a sub-fauna, and each comparable with one of the subdivisions of Dumfriesshire, Lakeland and the other regions where the deep-water facies is found.

It will be seen that though the principle of William Smith that strata can be recognised by their included organisms has been extended since his time, and shown to apply to far smaller subdivisions of the strata than was suspected, the method of application is the same, and is more or less successful according to the amount of evidence which is accumulated in support of it.