Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-767nl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-12T19:54:33.241Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

VII.—On the Formation of Mountains. A Reply to the Rev. O. Fisher

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 June 2018

F. W. Hutton
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It was with great interest that I read in the Geological Magazine Vol. X. for June, 1873, the Rev. O. Fisher's able paper on the Formation of Mountains; and although I cannot altogether agree to his reasoning, I have to thank him for re-calculating, more correctly no doubt than I have done, my table of the altitude of domes, and also for explaining several points which I had not clearly conceived before. Nevertheless, I think that I shall be able to show that his arguments against the theory that I have advocated are not well founded.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Geological Magazine , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , January 1874 , pp. 22 - 28
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1874

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 On the Phenomena of Elevation and Subsidence, Phil. Mag., 12. 1872Google Scholar, and on the Formation of Mountains, Geol. Mag., 04, 1873, p. 166.Google Scholar

1 I find that this theory was first suggested by Mr. Scrope (Volcanoes, 1st edition, 1825, p. 30), so that it has no right to the name of the Herschel-Babbage theory, as I previously called it.Google Scholar

2 To prevent misconception, I must explain that by a dome-shaped elevation I do not mean that a horizontal section through it would necessarily be circular. It may be an ellipse, of which the major and minor axes may have any ratio. From this point of view all anticlinal curves are parts of dome-shaped elevations.

1 Because the older the stratum, the larger must be the proportional space over which it was originally spread.

1 Mr. Wallace, A., on quite independent grounds, puts it at twenty-four millions for the Cambrian, and fourteen millions for the Triassic period. (Nature, i. p. 454, 3rd 03, 1870.)Google Scholar

2 These proportions are taken from the thickness of the various formations in the Northern Hemisphere. In New Zealand the geology is not yet sufficiently advanced to enable us to ascertain the thickness of the formations; but I am of opinion that the proportions between them will be found to be not very different from those that obtain in England.

3 According to Sir W. Thomson's theory, eleven million of years ago the interior temperature increased at the rate of 1° F. in 47 feet, so that the radiation was very little more than it is now.