>From the foregoing reasoning, and from the facts just given, I think we must admit the probability of the following proposition: namely, that when the bed of the sea is either stationary or rising, circumstances are far less favourable, than when the level is sinking, to the accumulation of CONCHIFEROUS deposits of sufficient thickness and extension to resist, when upheaved, the average vast amount of denudation.This result appears to me, in several respects, very interesting: every one is at first inclined to believe that at innumerable points, wherever there is a supply of sediment, fossiliferous strata are now forming, which at some future distant epoch will be upheaved and preserved; but on the views above given, we must conclude that this is far from being the case; on the contrary, we require (1st), a long-continued supply of sediment; (2nd), an extensive shallow area; and (3rd), that this area shall slowly subside to a great depth, so as to admit the accumulation of a widely extended thick mass of superincumbent strata.In how few parts of the world, probably, do these conditions at the present day concur! We can thus, also, understand the general want of that close sequence in fossiliferous formations which we might theoretically have anticipated; for, without we suppose a subsiding movement to go on at the same spot during an enormous period, from one geological era to another, and during the whole of this period sediment to accumulate at the proper rate, so that the depth should not become too great for the continued existence of molluscous animals, it is scarcely possible that there should be a perfect sequence at the same spot in the fossil shells of the two geological formations.(Professor H.D.Rogers, in his excellent address to the Association of American Geologists ("Silliman's Journal" volume 47 page 277) makes the following remark: "Iquestion if we are at all aware how COMPLETELY the whole history of all departed time lies indelibly recorded with the amplest minuteness of detail in the successive sediments of the globe, how effectually, in other words, every period of time HAS WRITTEN ITS OWN HISTORY, carefully preserving every created form and every trace of action." I think the correctness of such remarks is more than doubtful, even if we except (as I suppose he would) all those numerous organic forms which contain no hard parts.) So far from a very long-continued subsidence being probable, many facts lead to the belief that the earth's surface oscillates up and down; and we have seen that during the elevatory movements there is but a small chance of DURABLE fossiliferous deposits accumulating.
Lastly, these same considerations appear to throw some light on the fact that certain periods appear to have been favourable to the deposition, or at least to the preservation, of contemporaneous formations at very distant points.We have seen that in South America an enormous area has been rising within the recent period; and in other quarters of the globe immense spaces appear to have risen contemporaneously.From my examination of the coral-reefs of the great oceans, I have been led to conclude that the bed of the sea has gone on slowly sinking within the present era, over truly vast areas: this, indeed, is in itself probable, from the ****** fact of the rising areas having been so large.In South America we have distinct evidence that at nearly the same tertiary period, the bed of the sea off parts of the coast of Chile and off Patagonia was sinking, though these regions are very remote from each other.If, then, it holds good, as a general rule, that in the same quarter of the globe the earth's crust tends to sink and rise contemporaneously over vast spaces, we can at once see, that we have at distant points, at the same period, those very conditions which appear to be requisite for the accumulation of fossiliferous masses of sufficient extension, thickness, and hardness, to resist denudation, and consequently to last unto an epoch distant in futurity.(Professor Forbes has some admirable remarks on this subject, in his "Report on the Shells of the Aegean Sea." In a letter to Mr.Maclaren ("Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal" January 1843), I partially entered into this discussion, and endeavoured to show that it was highly improbable, that upraised atolls or barrier-reefs, though of great thickness, should, owing to their small extension or breadth, be preserved to a distant future period.)
