CHAPTER THREE

THE NATURE AND SCOPE OF THE GEOLOGICAL WORK CARRIED OUT BY MANTELL, LYELL, AND MEMBERS OF THE IDENTIFIED ELITE

The geological work of the members of council identified in the two final screening tests, as well as that of the selected exceptions, Greenough and Phillips, is examined here with the aim of demonstrating that the principal geological work of each of the elite geologists encompassed a distinct area or segment of the discipline, including distinctive methodologies and practices, where they were regarded as the leading authorities, or exponents, by their peers. The analyses of the nature, scope, and importance of the work of the identified 15 geologists is carried out on a decade-by-decade basis, enabling trends to be detected and related to findings from the other main chapters. Consequently, this chapter contains a considerable amount of detailed. material. Particular emphasis is given to the geological investigations of Mantell and Lyell. Reviews of the literature relating to the geological work carried out during the 1820s, 1830s and 1840s are also carried out on a decade-by-decade basis; they are included in the respective studies of the identified geologists, since significant segments of the necessary analyses have been at least partly covered in the secondary literature. This observation particularly applies to important detailed studies on the stratigraphic investigations of Murchison and Sedgwick.1 The relevant literature on Lyell’s work is also considerable. The geological publications of the identified geologists provide the main focus for the analyses in this chapter. Since there were often considerable delays between the reading and publishing of GSL papers during the period 1820-1840, the reference date for all papers discussed is the year in which they were read.

1 See M.J.S. Rudwick, The Great Devonian Controversy: The Shaping of Scientific Knowledge among Gentlemanly Specialists, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1985, and J.A. Secord, Controversy in Victorian Geology: The Cambrian-Silurian Dispute, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1986.

62 3.1 THE CONCEPT OF A GEOLOGICAL DOMAIN

Because of the proprietorial overtones of the concept, the term ‘domain’ has been selected in preference to alternatives such as territory, province, area, or cognitive field, which have less possessive connotations. Several other aspects are worth noting. First, the existence of personal ‘geological domains’ was usually tacitly and informally acknowledged by each practitioner’s geological peers, but rarely codified. One instance, however, appears in Conybeare’s 1822 paper on the Ichthyosaurus and Plesiosaurus,2 in which he apologised for “intruding on the province of the comparative anatomist” [Sir Everard Home (1756-1832)]. Morrell offers another example, “As early as 1835 Colby had assured Murchison that the [Geological] survey would not trespass on Murchison’s ‘district’ for at least four years”.3 Another feature concerns the various phases in the development sequence of each domain. In the first stage, a new field of geological investigation or interpretation needs to be identified and instigated. This can be achieved by the geologist serendipitously, or from analysing particular situations and identifying potential opportunities. Sedgwick was in no doubt about Murchison’s luck in ‘discovering’ what came to be called Silurian strata on the Welsh borderland in 1831, and wrote to him as follows after reading and disagreeing with Murchison’s version of events:

Buckland you told me, gave you your line of march. It was rich in organics and abounded by igneous rocks; and you told me, by letter, that your main object was to see the pranks the igneous rocks were playing. Starting there without any anticipation of what has turned up, you stumbled upon a rich field and have since gathered an ample harvest after enormous labours.4

2 W.D. Conybeare, ‘Additional Notices on the Fossil Genera Ichthyosaurus and Plesiosaurus’, TGSL, 1822, 1, pp. 103-123 on p. 123. 3 J.B. Morrell, ‘London Institutions and Lyell’s Career: 1820-41’, The British Journal for the History of Science, 1976, 32, pp. 132-146 on p. 141 (note 45), where the quoted extract is in a letter from Buckland to Murchison, 12 March 1835, Devon Record Office, D.138 M/F 221. 4 H.S. Torrens, ‘The scientific ancestry and historiography of The Silurian System’, Journal of the Geological Society of London, 1990, 147, pp. 657-662 on p. 660; quoting from Sedgwick to Murchison, 25 January 1836, Geological Society Archives, M/S11/96b.

63 In contrast to the claimed fortuitous manner in which Murchison initially stumbled across his Silurian domain, Lyell was very much a proponent of the analytical approach. In a letter written to Mantell on 23 March 1829, Lyell identified a major geological opportunity for Mantell to exploit and thereby gain the fame he yearned for. In effect, Lyell set out a ‘career blue-print’ for Mantell to follow. In writing this letter, Lyell indirectly revealed himself to be a master in the art of fashioning a geological career. The relevant section of this letter, omitted by Katherine Lyell in her Life, Letters and Journals of Sir Charles Lyell,5 is set down below:

Now that Mantellias are becoming numerous and other honours you must keep up to your reputation which is high by confining your attention & concentrating it in future on that department in Geol.y where you are strongest & least in danger of being rivalled. I feel my own honour a little compromised in the affair, as a friend of mine had the impudence at the Soc.y on Friday to call you as he addressed another celebrated geologist ‘the man whom Lyell here & some folks abroad choose to make much of’ – of course in private conversation; in a coterie of which I was one. Now, I have sworn with myself that you shall show them ere many years are over who & what you are & put to the blush the jealous unwillingness which most metropolitan monopolists in Science both in France & here exhibit towards all such as happen not to breathe their own exclusive atmosphere. But you must concentrate. Cut Botany, except as a collector. Give up all ideas of a popular book on Wonders of Geol.y which would yield cash only. Of course you will not attempt to tilt with Fitton & me ‘on the general principles of Geol.y’ which we mean soon (mine will be soon) to give you. After all my travelling & reading I find it too much to dare & only excusable when I measure my strength against others & not with the subject. But from this moment resolve to bring out a general work on ‘British fossil reptiles & fish’ – Clift has not time & never will have – Buckland is divided amongst a 100 things & no anatomist. Conybeare [has] no time to devote himself to such a branch. Cuvier can not come to fossil fish in 4 or 5 years & must then quote you. His new book on fish enables you to start fair with others as to modern fish. Your book may be made popular even & contain recent zoological geology like Cuvier’s last. Our fossil fish lie within small compass as yet. You must run up often to town. After you have worked quietly to the point for a year & ½ or more, then out with a prodromus à la Adolphe B.[rongniart] Fish & reptiles will then be sent & lent in abundance from all Museums. You must purchase some from Lyme Regis &

5 K.M. Lyell (ed.), Life, Letters, and Journals of Sir Charles Lyell, Bart., author of ‘Principles of Geology &c’, 2 vols, Murray, London, 1881.

64 many books & say nothing for a while. By this you may render yourself truly great which without much travelling you will never become in general geoly. The field is yours – but might not remain open many years. It is worthy of ambition & the only one which in an equally short time you could make your own in England for ever.6

Lyell’s advice concerning the identification and delineation of a new geological domain embraces a combination of the principles of war and a strategic business plan. Its essence can be summed up as follows:

· Analyse your strengths and weaknesses. · Analyse the strengths and weaknesses of your opponents to determine potential opportunities. · Develop a clearly defined goal; but do not compete with your mentor (Lyell !). · Build on your strengths. Maintain and develop your alliances. · Obtain the necessary resources to achieve your goal and work secretly until a suitable base has been established. · Attack when ready; issue a prodromus; secure your reputation.

Lyell’s approach also reveals another characteristic of the first stage in establishing a geological domain: a penchant for secrecy, so that a head- start can be made, and potential competitors forestalled. Lyell also practised what he preached. After outlining to Mantell some aspects of his joint scheme with Deshayes to classify the Tertiary shells of the various European basins, Lyell gave the following admonition:

No-one but yourself & Deshayes is privy to these state secrets as yet & till I get in further I have no wish to advantage them. I treat you in this request as a friend sans ceremony.7

The second or middle step in the fashioning of a geological domain is characterised by establishing priority for the research claims in the particular investigative field. It is at this stage that informal proprietary

6 CL to GAM, 23 March 1829, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 62. (Supp. Vol.-Letter 55). 7 CL to GAM, 24 February 1829, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 62. (Supp. Vol.-Letter 53).

65 rights are acknowledged and barriers of entry erected by virtue of the head- start obtained and priority secured. Interlopers are thereby discouraged from entering this area of activity. In the final stage of the sequence, the tacitly acknowledged proprietorship factor, which is basically antithetical to the institutional norms of science, wanes in significance and is replaced by enhanced reputation and recognition as an authority. In an archetypal case, the Silurian System was regarded not merely as Murchison’s domain: Murchison was recognised as ‘King of Siluria’. In effect, the means (proprietorial rights over a domain) merged into the goal (fame and recognition). Another important feature of geological domains is that their nature and extent vary widely, because of differences in both kind and degree. There are basic distinctions between ‘taxonomic’ and ‘causal’ categories of geological domains. Stratigraphic domains can range in extent from a sub- stage stratum in a particular district to a complete system such as the Silurian in England, Europe, or the world. Likewise, ‘causal’ domains range from an explanation of a specific, local phenomenon, such as the ‘roads’ of Glen Roy in Scotland, to an overall theory of glaciation. A basic requirement of the concept is that it encompasses all aspects and variations of geological activity. Four categories of geological domain are outlined and proposed, following the literature review on this topic.

3.1.1 LITERATURE REVIEW

The literature concerning scientific and geological domains is relatively sparse in a direct sense, but is nevertheless indirectly pervasive. It seems probable that the paucity of direct references8 results from the implicit and temporary nature of such intellectual ‘properties’. The literature respecting the concept is indirectly pervasive, since any account of geological activity necessarily deals with at least one domain. However, the notion is generally

8 The only two direct references to the proprietorial nature of geological domains that have been located in my enquiries concern Conybeare’s reference to intruding on Sir Everard Home’s ‘province’ (note 2) and Colby’s assurance that he would not trespass on Murchison’s ‘district’ (note 3). Comparable examples in the disciplines of physics and mathematics are contained in R.K. Merton, The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1973, p. 294, note 19.

66 bypassed, taken for granted, or not explicitly stated. Notable exceptions are Rudwick’s and Secord’s analyses of the disputes over the Devonian, Silurian and Cambrian domains.9 As Oldroyd has laconically noted, “It all had to do with territory”.10 Generally however, emphasis has tended to focus on the end goals of recognition and the achievement of scientific status, particularly important factors amongst ‘gentleman-specialists’ during the first half of the nineteenth century. As Rudwick observed:

Without a recognised ladder of advancement as the anticipated reward for mere diligence, they [the gentleman-specialists] were left to struggle more individualistically for their due share of less tangible rewards. They were therefore concerned with issues of recognition and scientific priority with an even greater intensity than later generations.11

Unlike the disciplines of physics and chemistry, geology does not offer many major eponymous rewards, since there are few geological laws, units of measurement or physical constants that can be named in honour of their discoverer.12 Consequently the importance of priority is accentuated. In regard to amplifying the various categories of geological domain, Rudwick has made two complementary contributions, albeit from different contexts. His first input has been discussed in the literature review of the previous chapter (Section 2.1.6) that dealt with the nature of the English geological elite. In The Great Devonian Controversy Rudwick defined this elite group in terms of ‘ascribed geological competence’, which in turn, relates to regionality and transportability.13 Thus the geological competence of ‘amateurs’14 was usually restricted to their immediate district, whereas at the other extreme the expertise of the elite was national, if not international, in scope. Rudwick’s concept of regionality is used here to rank stratigraphic domains in terms of relative importance. However, it is not an applicable classificatory tool for all categories of geological domain.

9 See note 1. 10 D.R. Oldroyd, Thinking about the Earth: A History of Ideas in Geology, Harvard University Press, Massachusetts, 1996, p. 120. 11 Rudwick, op. cit. (note 1), p. 18. 12 The naming of fossil species after a particular geologist is not regarded as a major eponymous reward. However, some important sites are named after geologists, e.g. Baringer Crater, (Arizona). 13 Rudwick, op. cit. (note 1), pp. 418-426. 14 In this context the term ‘amateur’ refers to collectors and enthusiasts whose geological activities

67 A second adaptation from Rudwick’s work derives from the need to find a method to categorise different kinds of geological domain. To this end the four different styles of geological work outlined in his paper, ‘Cognitive Styles in Geology’,15 were selected as a starting point. In this paper Rudwick first described the characteristics of four styles of geological work, the ‘concrete’, ‘abstract’, ‘agnostic’, and ‘binary’, and then examined each, in conjunction with the social environment of practitioners of that style, to assess their degree of correspondence with the social anthropological grid/group theory of Mary Douglas.16 In essence, Douglas’s four-fold sociological classification results from juxtaposing two complementary variables; first, the degree of an individual’s commitment to their social or working environment (group control), and second, the intensity of social control to which they are subjected within that specific group (grid control).17 Rudwick’s ‘concrete’ style of geology, characterised by order and classification, was matched to the high grid/high group social system of Douglas. The ‘abstract’ geological style, with its emphasis on causality, was related to the individualistic low grid/low group system; the ‘agnostic’ style, characterised by scepticism and a strongly empirical methodology, was placed in the high grid/low group category; and finally, the ‘binary’ style, where earth history is marked by a unique boundary event, was matched to the low grid/high group social system. Rudwick suggested the need for further study and refinement in this area, but the only subsequent application of his outlined approach in the history of geology has been Oldroyd’s 1984 analysis of Buckland’s style of geological investigation.18 An attraction of combining Rudwick’s four styles of geological investigation with Douglas’s grid/group theory, in order to obtain a classificatory system for geological domains, is that the sociological underpinning provided by Douglas could also provide insights into the working environment of each geologist. The inter-relationships between the

tended to be limited to their neighbourhood and who did not exhibit a major commitment to geology. 15 M.J.S. Rudwick, ‘Cognitive Styles in Geology’, in: M. Douglas (ed.), Essays in the Sociology of Perception, Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd., London, 1982, pp. 219-242. 16 M. Douglas, ‘Introduction to Grid/Group Analysis’, in: ibid., pp. 1-8. 17 These descriptions of grid and group control have been taken from D.R. Oldroyd, ‘By Grid and Group Divided: Buckland and the English Geological Community in the early Nineteenth Century’, Annals of Science, 1984, 41, pp. 383-393 on p. 388. 18 Ibid.

68 four sociological categories of Douglas and Rudwick’s geological styles are indicated in the following table.

GRID AND GROUP CHARACTERISTICS OF GEOLOGICAL STYLES19 ( # indicates the grid/group characteristics of Douglas; * indicates Rudwick’s geological style)

High Grid - Low Group High Grid - High Group

Hierarchical social structure and Hierarchical social system - control - minimal group allegiance # willingly accepted #

‘Agnostic’ geological style * ‘Concrete’ geological style *

Low Grid - Low Group Low Grid - High group

Social individualism # Social Factionalism #

‘Abstract’ geological style * ‘Binary’ geological style *

Despite his earlier willingness to entertain the grid/group concept, Oldroyd concluded in 1986 that there were considerable problems for historians of science in applying grid/group analysis.20 His concern stemmed from several reservations regarding Douglas’s concept - the general lack of precision in defining the terms grid and group; doubts that the two variables can cover the whole of a cultural field; some uncertainty whether the theory applies to both individuals and groups; and, finally, the lack of a causal link between social formation and cognitive structure. A further constraint in applying grid/group analysis to a classification of geological work is that a person may belong to several different social groups at one time. More pertinently, geological work frequently cannot be categorised in just one of four ways; in many cases the appropriate classification encompasses a ‘mix’ of two, or even three, types of domain. In

19 This table is adapted from one deployed by Oldroyd, op. cit. (note 17), p. 388. 20 D.R. Oldroyd, ‘Grid / Group Analysis for Historians of Science?’, History of Science, 1986, 24, pp. 145-171.

69 any case, although the social working background of a geologist is of interest, it is not directly relevant to the requirements of this thesis. The issue here is to obtain a classificatory system for analysing the scope and importance of a geologist’s work. For these reasons grid/group analysis is not used in conjunction with the adopted classificatory system for geological domains.

3.1.2 CATEGORIES OF GEOLOGICAL DOMAIN

The four basic categories of geological domain adopted for analysing the work of the 15 nominated geologists are now described for the time-period under discussion. Three of these domains, the ‘taxonomic’, ‘causal’, and ‘scriptural’ approximate Rudwick’s ‘concrete’, ‘abstract’, and ‘binary’ styles of geology. However, his cognitive style of ‘agnosticism’ only represents one of several types of domain within a wider category of ‘modal’ domains. The various characteristics applicable to the former three types of domain generally conform to those used in Rudwick’s paper on geological cognitive styles.21 Domains within each of these four basic categories also vary markedly in terms of their relative importance. Different criteria are used to assess the ranking of specific domains within each category.

(1) TAXONOMIC DOMAINS (based on Rudwick’s ‘concrete’ style)

Characteristics and Explanatory Comments

· The primary cognitive emphasis is on order and classification, rather than cause. Geological investigations are focused on the concrete order of strata or fossil remains. · Methodology is primarily empirical. · Stratigraphy and taxonomic palaeontology comprise the major sub- divisions of this domain. Classic exemplars cited by Rudwick are Werner and Murchison. Secord has summed up the latter’s outlook as follows: “Rather than considering the strata as the products of process and time,

21 Rudwick, op. cit. (note 15), pp. 220-239.

70 Murchison typically viewed them as ‘systems’, ‘units’, and ‘formations’, as elements in a classification”.22 · The relative importance of ‘taxonomic’ domains in the same field, for example, Devonian fossil fish, is essentially determined by their regional extent (local district, county, major region or country, and international). In this thesis ‘major’ domains are national, if not international, in scope. ‘Minor’ domains tend to be restricted to a county or specific region, such as the chalk deposits of Sussex. ‘Taxonomic’ domains of lesser importance are usually confined to a local area. · Domains in this category are the most frequently encountered, and exhibit the most obvious proprietorial characteristics.

(2) CAUSAL DOMAINS (based on Rudwick’s ‘abstract’ style)

Characteristics and Explanatory Comments

· Such geological investigations are markedly causal in orientation. The aim of any investigation is to determine the physical or biological causes of a past geological event; the overall goal is to reduce these causes to simple, explanatory principles. · Geological interpretations can include concepts from outside the discipline. Earth history is weakly classified. · Anomalies are ‘assimilated’, since it is expected that they will be incorporated into an improved theoretical structure. · ‘Causal’ domains are based on general explanations and principles. Thus the conclusions of an investigation into the origins of a particular type of coral reef should apply to all coral reefs of that type. “Major’ causal domains embrace fundamental geological explanations and principles; at lower levels, explanations are confined to a specific local phenomenon. · Actualism, geological dynamics, and aspects of palaeo-ecology are examples of geological work in this domain. In their day, Hutton and Lyell were two of the most notable exponents.

22 J.A. Secord, ‘King of Siluria: Roderick Murchison and the Imperial Theme in Geology’, in : P. Bratlinger (ed.), Energy & Entropy: Science and Culture in Victorian Britain: Essays from Victorian Studies, Indiana Press, Bloomington and Indianapolis, 1989, p. 65.

71 (3) MODAL DOMAINS

Characteristics and Explanatory Comments

· ‘Modal’ domains are characterised by an assemblage of one or more geological doctrines, practices, and styles that collectively constitute a distinctive approach to geological investigations. · Geologists who established a major domain in this category needed a position of institutional power and influence in order to persuade, or direct, other geologists to adopt their particular practices and viewpoints – otherwise their domain would have been relatively ineffective and they would not have been recognised as a leading exponent. At the most senior levels there were two key positions for this purpose during the first half of the nineteenth century, the Presidency of the GSL, and the Directorship of the Geological Survey. Other major positions of influence were the professorships of geology at Oxford and Cambridge. · A successful domain in this category effectively disappears if its distinguishing mode of practices and doctrines are absorbed into the prevailing mainstream of geological investigation. · The distinctive geological approaches and practices that De la Beche introduced and implemented at the Geological Survey in the 1840s is an example of a ‘modal’ domain. · ‘Modal’ domains can be complex and incorporate aspects of other types of domain. They can also be fashioned jointly by a small group of geologists. The English school of geology,23 developed and promoted by the ‘clergyman-specialists’ during the 1820s and 1830s, can be regarded as a broad, evolving, ‘modal’ domain incorporating ‘causal’, ‘taxonomic’, and ‘scriptural’ inputs. · Geological scepticism can be regarded as a distinctive geological mode, particularly if promulgated from a position of authority. For this reason Rudwick’s ‘agnostic’ style24 is considered a sub-category of a ‘modal’

23 The characteristics of the English school, as identified and described by Rupke, are described in section 3.2.4 (1) of this chapter. 24 Rudwick’s ‘agnostic’ style of geology is characterised by a sceptical attitude to the construction of any major synthesis of earth history, a strong empirical bias that focuses on local rather than regional classification, the embracing of anomalies, and an overall viewpoint that the cognitive field of geology is one of great complexity. Rudwick, op. cit. (note 15), pp. 228-229.

72 domain, despite problematical aspects due to its idiosyncratic nature. Greenough was the most notable practitioner of this particular approach.

(4) SCRIPTURAL DOMAINS (Rudwick’s ‘binary’ style)

Characteristics and Explanatory Comments

· Such geological work is strongly ‘dimensional’, but only to a unique boundary event, such as the Deluge or the Creation. Earth history is therefore classified in a simple, binary manner into two very sharply contrasting periods, most commonly pre and post-diluvial. · Explanatory goals are causal, but only for the boundary-event and the subsequent history of the earth. · None of the geological work considered in this chapter is strictly scriptural in the literal sense. However, geologists such as Buckland, Conybeare and Sedgwick exhibited some implicit aspects of this style in their work dealing with diluvial theories in the 1810s and 1820s.

(5) OTHER RELEVANT ASPECTS CONCERNING DOMAINS

The work of any one geologist need not be confined to a specific domain. A mix encompassing elements of two or even three domain categories can be fashioned, though there is usually a bias towards one type. For example, during the 1820s Buckland’s domain of diluvialism can be considered as a mix of the ‘taxonomic’ and ‘scriptural’. The proportions of any such a ‘mix’ can also change over time. Geological activities such as lecturing and writing for the ‘popular’ market do not constitute domains, but are manifestations of the concept. A key point concerning all domains is that a geologist could not be considered to have fashioned a domain until regarded as a leading authority or exponent of that area of geology or geological practice.

3.2 1820 to 1830

73 3.2.1 THE STATUS OF ENGLISH GEOLOGY IN 1820-22

In some instances the following summary of the status of English geology relates to the period 1820-22, rather than 1820, in order to incorporate several significant and definitive geological publications printed in that year.25 An additional reason is that Mantell and Lyell first met on 4 October 182126 and it is pertinent to review geological knowledge at that time.

(1) TAXONOMIC GEOLOGY

The status of English stratigraphy at the beginning of the 1820s is well outlined in Conybeare and Phillips’ publication, Outlines of the Geology of England and Wales.27 A succinct account of the scope of this important book, as well as the status of English stratigraphy at that time, is provided by Zittel:

The two authors applied throughout the work William Smith’s principle of determining the age of the rocks upon the evidence of the fossils contained in them….The stratigraphical part begins with a short description of the Alluvium and Diluvium, then enters in fuller detail into consideration of the “Formations above the Chalk,” – the formations that were afterwards grouped as Tertiary. Conybeare and Phillips differentiated the successive horizons in this group, upon the basis of Webster’s and Buckland’s researches, into four horizons: – Upper Marine Formation (Crag and Bagshot Sand ) Fresh-water ” London Clay ” Plastic Clay ” Between these and the Oolite formation Conybeare and Phillips distinguished two main sub-divisions in the Cretaceous formation:– Upper Cretaceous System, comprising the Chalk deposits.

Lower Cretaceous System, comprising Chalk Marl, Green sand, Weald Clay, and ferruginous sand.

25 W.D. Conybeare and W. Phillips, Outlines of the Geology of England and Wales with an Introductory Compendium of the General Principles of that Science, and Comparative Views of the Structure of Foreign Countries : Illustrated by A Coloured Map and Sections. &c, William Phillips, London 1822 andiJ. Parkinson, Outlines of Oryctology. An Introduction to the Study of Fossil Organic Remains: especially of those found in the British Strata, Sherwood, London, 1822. 26 GAM-PJ, entry 4 October 1821, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ. 27 Conybeare and Phillips, op. cit. (note 25).

74 The sub-division of the Oolite formation was carried out on the basis of W. Smith’s observations. Conybeare and Phillips distinguished four main divisions: – Upper Oolite System, with (a) Purbeck Series, (b) Portland Oolite, (c) Kimmeridge Clay. Middle Oolite System, with (a) Coral Rag, (b) Oxford Clay. Lower Oolite System, with (a) Cornbrash, (b) Forest Marble, (c) Stonesfield Slate, (d) Great Oolite, (e) Lower Oolite, (f) Marl Stone. Lias. Between the Oolite and the Carboniferous formation, Conybeare and Phillips recognised the formation of the Red Marl and New Red Sandstone, and that of the Magnesian Limestone. No fossils had been found in the Red Marl and Sandstone formation, but Conybeare and Phillips correctly compared the group with the Bunter Sandstone on the continent. The Magnesian Limestone of Sunderland, Durham, and Northumberland was identified by means of its characteristic fossils as an equivalent of the “Zechstein” and Copper Slate Series on the Continent. Conybeare also recognised in the Conglomerates of Devonshire a formation corresponding to the “Red Underlyer” of the Continental deposits. Finally, the Carboniferous formation was very carefully described, and was sub-divided into four groups – Coal Measures, Millstone Grit and Shales, Carboniferous Limestone, and Old Red Sandstone. 28

In summary, at the time of the first meeting between Lyell and Mantell, the English stratigraphic system had been delineated down to the Old Red Sandstone.29 The Transition series, comprising what later came to be known as the Cambrian, Ordovician and Silurian, remained undifferentiated. Work still needed to be done sorting out the precise relationships of the Lower Cretaceous Greensand beds and the freshwater nature of the Weald Clay and ferruginous (Hastings) sand. According to Challinor,30 Parkinson’s Outlines of Oryctology31 “summarised in detail all palaeontological knowledge acquired at that time in Britain and the neighbouring parts of the Continent”. Parkinsons’s book, which followed his earlier three-volume work Organic Remains of a Former

28 K.A. von Zittel, History of Geology and Palaeontology to the End of the Nineteenth Century, (translated by M.M. Ogilvie-Gordon), Walter Scott, London, 1901, pp. 426-427. 29 It was intended that a second part of Conybeare and Phillips’ work would be subsequently issued on the older formations, but Phillips died in 1828. H.B. Woodward, History of Geology, Watts and Co., London, 1911, p. 64. 30 J. Challinor, The History of British Geology: A Bibliographical Study, David and Charles, Newton Abbot, 1971, p. 86. 31 Parkinson, op. cit. (note 25).

75 World,32 systematically listed ‘vegetable fossils’ on pages 5 to 35 and ‘Animal fossils’ on the following 298 pages. This work is also relevant since Parkinson was one of Mantell’s early geological mentors.33 Another feature of Parkinson’s Outlines of Oryctology is that it mentions the first of the large terrestrial fossil reptiles found in Britain, the Megalosaurus,34 the bones and teeth of which had been found in 1818 by Buckland,35 but were not described until 1824.36 Previous English reptile discoveries comprised two marine forms, Ichthyosaur and Plesiosaur.37 Consequently, in the early 1820s the field of research concerning the nature and classification of large fossil reptiles was in the early stages of investigation and was an unclaimed, potential domain.

(2) CAUSAL GEOLOGY

Unlike taxonomic geology, where the state of knowledge at any one time can be readily delineated because of its classificatory nature, there are difficulties in defining the status of causal geology. In particular, the degree of acceptance of a controversial theory can be difficult to gauge, even among a relatively homogeneous group such as the English ‘gentleman-specialists’. In 1820, British geology accommodated two separate, but partly inter-linked causal factions: the differing viewpoints of the Wernerians (Neptunists) and the Huttonians (Plutonists); and second, the extent to which the earth had been subjected to catastrophic events. Although ‘pure Huttonian’ theory included the cyclical mechanism of ongoing natural causes, catastrophist theory was frequently combined with plutonism.38 A further complicating

32 J. Parkinson, Organic Remains of a Former World: An Examination of the Mineralized Remains of the Vegetables and Animals of the Antediluvian World; Generally Termed Extraneous Fossils, 3 vols, London, 1804, 1808, 1811. 33 G.A. Mantell, A Pictorial Atlas of Fossil Remains consisting of coloured Illustrations selected from Parkinson’s ‘Organic Remains of a former World’, and Artis’s ‘Antediluvian Phytology’, with descriptions, H.G. Bohn, London, 1850, p. 14. 34 Parkinson, op. cit. (note 25), p. 298. 35 N.A. Rupke, The Great Chain of History: William Buckland and the English School of Geology (1814-1849), Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1983, p. 135. 36 W. Buckland, ‘Notice on the Megalosaurus, or Great Fossil Lizard of Stonesfield’, TGSL, 1824, 1, pp. 390-396. 37 Rupke, op. cit. (note 35), p. 134. 38 ‘Catastrophist’ Huttonians included Sir James Hall and Sir George Mackenzie. See Leroy E. Page, ‘Diluvialism and Its Critics in Great Britain in the Early Nineteenth Century’, in: C.J. Schneer (ed.), Toward a History of Geology, The M.I.T. Press, Massachusetts, 1969, pp. 257-271 on p. 264. A

76 factor was the influence of scripture on the exponents of these hypotheses, both explicitly and implicitly. An important common element, however, was the general acceptance of time as a key to understanding geological history. Towards the latter half of the 1810s an anti-theoretical bias was still much in evidence amongst some of the ‘gentleman-specialists’ within the Geological Society. The attitude of Fitton, for example, to geological theory generally, and to the ‘fire or water’ controversy in particular, was not one of ardour:

Notwithstanding all this, the matter-of-fact methods have lately been gaining in ground in Geology, as in all other sciences: hypotheses are now scarcely listened to; and even the well- organized theories which, a short time since, created so much controversy, receive in this day little attention or comment. Such, at least, seems to be the case with the sober-minded mineralogists of the South; who, in truth, have never shown that ardent zeal for their theories, which almost threw our northern capital into a flame. Fire and water are still indeed opposed to each other, as in days of yore; but it is now a modest and well-ordered struggle; more frequently resolving itself into a question about particular rocks, than embracing, as formerly, the whole series of mineral formations.39

Greene has pointed out that the gradual decline of Werner’s neptunism in favour of Hutton’s plutonism, over the period 1810 to 1830, was not evenly matched by the overthrow of Wernerian geognosy, particularly in Europe.40 Although basalt was widely recognised as an igneous rock after 1820,41 Werner’s students continued to adopt his pragmatic, methodical and observational approach to the study of the earth. Nevertheless, by 1820 the stage had been set for a renewed investigation into such major geological phenomena as volcanic activity. Catastrophist theory, in its various shades of grey, was widely accepted amongst English and Continental geologists in 1820, a significant

more prominent example is W.D. Conybeare, whose catastrophist explanations are cited in A. Hallam, Great Geological Controversies, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1989, p. 41. 39 W.H. Fitton, ‘Art. VIII. Transactions of the Geological Society. Vol. II. 4 to. pp. 558. London. Printed and Sold by William Phillips. 1814’, The Edinburgh Review or Critical Journal, 1817, XXVIII, pp. 174-192 on p. 175. 40 M.T. Greene, Geology in the Nineteenth Century: Changing Views of a Changing World, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, 1982, pp. 65-67. 41 Ibid., p. 69.

77 factor being Cuvier’s work,42 the English translation of which was published in four editions from 1817 to 1827. Cuvier’s evidence for a series of catastrophes in the world’s history was based on empirical data, such as major breaks in the fossil record, the alternation of freshwater and marine deposits, the discovery of marine fossils and boulders in the Alps, and the unsorted clays and gravels of the last ‘Deluge’. Possible mechanisms or causes for these seeming catastrophes were usually not stated explicitly. Conybeare referred to ‘violent convulsions’,43 but this was the extent of his explanation. In brief, the effect and power of present-day observable causes, combined with vast periods of time, was not then fully appreciated or accepted. However, as Oldroyd has pointed out in regard to Cuvier’s position on the matter,44 alternative explanations had significant implications. Operations of nature were either very different in the past and exhibited no uniformity, or catastrophic episodes such as the Deluge were supernatural events, and as a consequence geology had to deal with miracles.

(3) SCRIPTURAL GEOLOGY

In 1820 scripture exerted a major influence on English geological thought. As Hallam has noted: “Conybeare, along with virtually all his scientific contemporaries, was a firm believer in the scriptural Deluge”.45 The outstanding exponent of the Deluge was Buckland, who was in the process of establishing ‘diluvialism’ as a geological domain in the late 1810s. Buckland’s work on diluvialism has been well documented by Page,46 Rupke,47 and Hallam.48 All three authors have highlighted Buckland’s inaugural lecture49 at Oxford in 1819, when he presented a summary of the geological evidence for the Deluge, which he also tied in with natural

42 G.L.C.F.D. de Cuvier, Essay on the Theory of the Earth with Mineralogical Notes and an Account of Cuvier’s Discoveries by Professor Jameson, translated by R. Kerr, Blackwood, Edinburgh, 1813. 43 Conybeare and Phillips, op. cit. (note 25), pp. xxi and xxii. 44 Oldroyd, op. cit. (note 10), pp. 133-134. 45 Hallam, op. cit. (note 38), p. 41. 46 Page, op. cit. (note 38), pp. 262-267. 47 Rupke, op. cit. (note 35), pp. 37-41 and pp. 59-60. 48 Hallam, op. cit. (note 38), p. 41. 49 W. Buckland, Vindiciae Geologicae: or the Connexion of Geology with Religion Explained, Oxford, 1820.

78 theology.50 Nevertheless, Buckland shied away from ascribing a specific cause to the Mosaic deluge, thus distancing himself from the biblical literalists.

(4) MODAL DOMAINS

Only one geological domain in this category had been fashioned in England at the beginning of the 1820s, that of geological scepticism, which was very much the domain of Greenough, an original member of the GSL, and its president from 1807 to 1813 and 1818 to 1820. He was therefore in a position of power and prestige to exercise his geological viewpoint.51 Greenough’s chief publication, A Critical Examination of the First Principles of Geology,52 was published in 1819 and consisted of a series of eight essays on most of the major, contemporary aspects of geology. The essays embodied all aspects of Greenough’s sceptical approach to geology and are characterised by a distrust of theory and generalisation and by the emphasis given to detail, empiricism, anomalies, conflicting opinions, and local rather than regional classification. Greenough’s publication was generally not well received at the time,53 as typified by the frustrations expressed by the non-gentleman geologist, Robert Bakewell:

As the present volume professes to contain a Critical Examination of the first principles of Geology, we think that the author ought at the commencement to have concisely enumerated what he regarded as first principles; and he might have classed them under four divisions, as certain, probable, dubious, or false. Instead of doing this, Mr. Greenough has presented us with eight essays, in which he has brought forwards the conflicting opinions of different geologists, and enumerated facts that are at variance with these opinions; which having done, he frequently leaves the reader without any decision on the question at issue.54

50 Ibid., p. 35. 51 In Chapter Four [Section 4.3.1. (1)] an example is given of how Greenough expounded his sceptical mode of geology in a letter to Mantell, dated 27 April 1817. 52 G.B. Greenough, A Critical Examination of the First Principles of Geology; in a Series of Essays, Longman & Co., London, 1819. 53 J. Challinor, ‘Progress of British Geology during the nineteenth century’, Annals of Science, 1970, 26, pp. 177-234 on p. 217. 54 [R. Bakewell], ‘Art.V. A Critical Examination of the First Principles of Geology, in a Series of Essays. By G.B. Greenough, President of the Geological Society, F.R.S., F.L.S. 8vo. Pp. 36. 9s. Boards. Longman & Co. 1819’, The Monthly Review; or Literary Journal, Enlarged, 1819, 90, pp. 376- 393 on p. 378. For confirmation of the authorship of Bakewell see Torrens, op. cit. (note 4), pp. 660-662.

79 In effect, Bakewell’s detailed, 17-page review of Greenough’s book constituted a major criticism of the latter’s sceptical approach. However, in view of Greenough’s status within the GSL, his geological peers had no option but to recognise him as the leading exponent of this ‘modal’ domain.

(5) REVIEW OF THE STATUS OF ENGLISH GEOLOGY IN 1820

Six of the fifteen geologists whose work is reviewed in this chapter were not members of the GSL in 1820 and had not published the results of any geological investigation.55 Mantell’s published work was restricted to his Linnean Society paper on a fossil Alcyonium,56 while Lyell had only been a GSL member for one year. De la Beche read his first GSL paper in 1819. Wollaston, the only member of council identified in the penultimate screening test (Table 2.13) for the period 1807 to 1820, confined his researches to chemistry and metallurgy, and consequently none of his work constituted a geological domain as defined here. This leaves the investigations of Buckland, Conybeare, Fitton, Greenough and Sedgwick to be considered. By the end of 1820 Buckland had read five papers at the GSL, all of which can be described as taxonomic in nature, since they dealt with a miscellany of stratigraphic and palaeontological subjects.57 Only one of these papers was concerned with diluvial issues,58 but Buckland’s approach was

55 These geologists were: Darwin, Egerton, Murchison, Owen, J. Phillips and Whewell. 56 G.A. Mantell, ‘A Description of a fossil Alcyonium from the Chalk Strata near Lewes, in a Letter to A.B. Lambert Esq. F.R.S. V.P.L.S. &c’, Transactions of the Linnean Society, London, 1815, 11, pp. 401-407. 57 W. Buckland,i‘Description of an insulated Group of Rocks of Slate and Greenstone, in Cumberland and Westmoreland on the east side of Appleby between Melmerby and Murton’, TGSL, 1817, 4, pp. 105-116;i‘Description of a series of Specimens from the Plastic Clay near Reading, Berks. With Observations on the Formation to which those Beds belong’, TGSL, 1817, 4, pp. 277- 304;i‘Description of the Paramoudra, a singular fossil body that is found in the Chalk of the North of Ireland; with some general Observations upon Flints in Chalk, tending to illustrate the History of their Formation’, TGSL, 1817, 4, pp. 413-423;i‘Notice on the Geological Structure of a part of the Island of Madagascar, founded on a Collection transmitted to the Right Honourable the Earl Bathurst, by Governor Farquhar, in 1819; with Observations on some Specimens from the interior of New South Wales, collected during Mr. Oxley’s Expedition to the River Macquarie, in the Year 1818, and transmitted also to Earl Bathurst’ [5 May 1820], TGSL, 1821, 5, pp. 476-481; i‘Description of the Quartz Rock of the Lickey Hill in Worcestershire, and of the Strata immediately surrounding it; with Considerations on the Evidence of a recent Deluge, afforded by the Gravel Beds of Warwickshire and Oxfordshire, and the Valley of the Thames from Oxford downwards to London; and an Appendix, containing analogous proofs of diluvian action. Collected from various authorities’[3 December 1819], TGSL, 1821, 5, pp. 506-544. 58 Buckland, ‘Description of the Quartz Rock of the Lickey Hill in Worcestershire.’, 1821.

80 non-scriptural in this case. However, his inaugural Oxford address, Vindiciae Geologicae, published in 1820, incorporated a pronounced component of scriptural geology. At this time Buckland was only in the process of establishing diluvialism as a geological domain. The situation of Conybeare and Sedgwick in 1820 was similar to Buckland’s, though the former two ‘clergyman-specialists’ had not yet identified separate domains to exploit. Nevertheless, Conybeare’s joint publication, Outlines of the Geology of England and Wales, was more than sufficient to consolidate his established geological reputation. Sedgwick was yet to publish. By 1820 Fitton had written five geological reviews,59 besides a paper published in the first volume of the GSL’s Transactions.60 At this stage he had not moved to London to devote himself to scientific investigations, let alone establish a geological domain. Greenough, in fact, was the only member of council who had established a geological domain by 1820, albeit one characterised by idiosyncratic negativism.

3.2.2 THE GEOLOGICAL WORK OF MANTELL IN THE 1820s

Mantell’s geological work during the 1820s, culminating in 12 publications, can be classified into three inter-related segments: the geology and organic remains of Sussex; the discovery of the Iguanodon; and the cataloguing of Sussex fossils. These three categories are now separately discussed.

(1) THE GEOLOGY AND FOSSIL REMAINS OF SUSSEX

Mantell’s work in this category comprised two major books, The Fossils of the South Downs,61 and Illustrations of the Geology of Sussex,62 two booklets

59 In 1813 under the pseudonym “F”, Fitton published two articles entitled ‘On the Geological System of Werner’, in Nicholson’s Journal of Natural Philosophy. DSB. Additionally, Fitton wrote two reviews on the TGSL, 1814 and 1816, 2 and 3, series 1, for The Edinburgh Review, 1817 and 1818, 27 and 29. He also reviewed the work of Smith in The Edinburgh Review, 1818, 29. 60 W. Fitton, ‘Notice respecting the Geological Structure of the Vicinity of Dublin; with an account of some rare Minerals found in Ireland’, TGSL, 1811, 1, pp. 269-280. 61 G.A. Mantell, The Fossils of the South Downs: or Illustrations of the Geology of Sussex, Lupton Relfe, London, 1822. 62 G.A. Mantell, Illustrations of the Geology of Sussex: Containing a General View of the Geological relations of the South-eastern part of England; with Figures and Descriptions of the Fossils of Tilgate Forest, Lupton Relfe, London, 1827.

81 based on these major publications and directed to a more general and popular market,63 and four minor, short papers or notices on aspects of the stratigraphy and fossils of Sussex.64 The following analysis of Mantell’s work focuses on his two books published in 1822 and 1827, since they provide the best insight into his geological approach during this period. In the preface to Fossils of the South Downs, Mantell stated: “upon fixing my residence at Lewes, I resolved to devote my leisure moments to the investigation of the ‘Organic remains of a former world’: a study replete with interest and instruction”. It will be demonstrated in the next chapter that Mantell had an additional, socially orientated motivation to produce this planned study, but his statement is significant in indicating the influence of Parkinson,65 as well as Mantell’s early predisposition towards organic remains, rather than to other areas of geology. In fact, Mantell was not a pioneer investigator into the geology of Sussex, since Farey66 and Smith67 had unravelled much of the basic stratigraphy before 1810. Furthermore, Mantell had seen Smith’s new section on Sussex strata in September 1819,68 and according to Dean,69 also had an opportunity to see a pre-publication, proof copy of Conybeare and Phillips’ Outlines of the Geology of England and

63 G.A. Mantell,iOutlines of the Natural History of the Environs of Lewes, John Baxter, Lewes, 1824; andiA Sketch of the Geology of the Rape of Bramber in the County of Sussex, W. Lee, Lewes, 1827. The former 24 page booklet is essentially the same as Mantell’s ‘Natural History of the District’, in: T.W. Horsfield, The History and Antiquities of Lewes and its Vicinity, 2 vols, J. Baxter, Lewes, 1824-1827. The latter booklet, comprising 16 pages, provided an ‘epitome’ of Sussex geology for the popular market. 64 G.A. Mantell,i‘Notice accompanying some Specimens from the Blue Chalk Marl of Bletchingley’, TGSL, 1824, 1, series 2, Note 4, p. 421;i‘Description of some Fossil Vegetables of the Tilgate Forest in Sussex’, TGSL, 1824, 1, series 2, Note 7, pp. 421-424;i‘On the Iron Sand Formation of Sussex. In a Letter to Dr. Fitton. Secretary of the Geological Society’, TGSL, 1826, 2, series 2, pp. 131-134; and i ‘Remarks on the Geological Position of the Strata of Tilgate Forest in Sussex’, ENPJ, 1826, 1, pp. 262-265. 65 Parkinson’s main geological work was entitled Organic Remains of a Former World, 3 vols, London, 1804, 1807 and 1811. Mantell later paid tribute to Parkinson, who was also a medical practitioner, for the encouragement and guidance which Parkinson had given him in the 1810s, in his Pictorial Atlas of Fossil Remains, 1850, p. 14. 66 See T.D. Ford, ‘The first detailed Geological Sections across England by John Farey 1806-1808’, Mercian Geologist, 1967, 2, pp. 41-49. 67 See J. Phillips, Memoirs of William Smith, Murray, London, 1844, pp. 63-64. Additional information on the early geology of the Weald is contained in R.W. Gallois, British Regional Geology: The Wealden District, fourth ed., British Geological Survey, Keyworth, 1992, pp. 1-2. 68 J. Cooper and H. Torrens, ‘Charles Lyell Bicentenary Meeting: Wealden Field Excursion Notes’, August 1997, on p. 5. and E.C. Curwen (ed.), The Journal of Gideon Mantell, Surgeon and Geologist: covering the years 1818-1852, Oxford University Press, London, 1940, p. 12. 69 D. Dean, ‘A Bicentenary Retrospective of Gideon Algernon Mantell (1790-1852)’, Journal of Geological Education, 1990, 38, pp. 434-443 on p. 435.

82 Wales. At the very least Mantell was therefore in a position to produce a comprehensive review of his county’s stratigraphy, besides compiling lists and descriptions of the fossils found in the various Sussex beds. Mantell’s Fossils of the South Downs can be described as a lavish production with its 42 plates, but the book is not notable for any innovative contribution to geological thought. The 327-page volume commences with a 13-page preliminary essay ‘On the Correspondence between the Mosaic Account of the Creation and the Geological Structure of the Earth’ – in a letter to the author by a clergyman of the established church.70 It can be surmised that Mantell included this to enhance the acceptability of the publication to potential subscribers rather than because of any strong belief in scriptural geology.71 The bulk of the book concerns the Secondary (Cretaceous) strata of Sussex, and in particular, the chalk formation.72 Dean states that 76 new species are described by Mantell,73 and certainly the book’s strength lies in the listing and description of the various fossils of the county. However, Mantell’s geological interpretations were cautious and tentative. In his concluding observations Mantell did not make a judgement on whether the ‘Iron Sand’ and the ‘Weald Clay’ were of freshwater origin.74 In the former instance, after noting that the fossil shells of the iron-sand resembled a species of Tellina, or Nacula, and others were supposed to belong to the genus Cyrene, Mantell merely commented “whether they are of fresh water, or of marine origin, has not been satisfactorily determined”. In regard to the Weald clay, commonly supposed to be of freshwater origin, Mantell noted the differing observations of G.B. Sowerby, but gave no conclusion. Even when the arguments for a fresh-water origin were overwhelming, as in the case of Mantell’s ‘Tilgate Limestone’, he was not incisive, as indicated in the third of his eight concluding inferences:

70 Although the author’s name of this preliminary essay was not published, Vallance identified the clergyman as Henry Hoper, at that time vicar of Portslade, Brighton. T.G. Vallance, ‘Gideon Mantell (1790-1852): A Focus for Study in the History of Geology at the Turnbull Library’, in: M.E. Hoare and L.G. Bell (eds), “In Search of New Zealand’s Scientific Heritage”, Bulletin of the Royal Society of New Zealand, 1984, 21, pp. 91-100 on p. 94. 71 The names of subscribers listed at the beginning of this book indicate that 28 of the 134 were clergymen. 72 55 pages are devoted to the Green Sand Formation, 168 to the Chalk Formation, 27 to the Tertiary Formations, and 21 to the Alluvial Group. 73 Dean, op. cit. (note 69), p. 435.

83 That one of these Formations (the Tilgate Beds) contain the remains of shells, fishes, palms, arborescent ferns, Turtles, gigantic lizards, and unknown quadrupeds, an assemblage of organic remains, for which it is difficult to account, unless we suppose, that the bed in which they are enclosed was deposited by a river or lake of fresh water.75

Mantell was also tentative in his advocacy of the use of fossils for correlative purposes, despite the influence of Parkinson and the work of Smith. Hancock has made a scathing reference to Mantell’s “lack of understanding” on this point,76 blaming Mantell’s social aspirations for his neglect of Smith’s stratigraphic principles. In one area, however, Mantell was not tentative or provisional; catastrophism was very much a feature of The Fossils of the South Downs. For example, he deduced that “the animals and vegetables of the Tilgate strata must have been overwhelmed by a fluid in a state of violent commotion, since they are generally broken, and their fragments promiscuously intermingled”.77 In his ‘Concluding Remarks’, Mantell gave a vivid description, if not a definition, of the Deluge:

the newer depositions have also been broken up, and in a great measure destroyed, by an irruption of water in a state of violent commotion; a catastrophe to whose powerful agency the present form of the surface of the earth, and the accumulations of beds of gravel, sand, &c are to be attributed.78

Mantell’s confusion concerning the relative position and nature of the Tilgate Beds in The Fossils of the South Downs highlights his limited stratigraphic understanding at that time. He did not realise that these thin beds of limestone and clay were part of the ‘Iron Sand’, and not, as he supposed, either laid down in a basin above that deposit, or alternatively, comprised a protrusion of the subordinate Purbeck beds.79 Mantell appeared

74 Mantell, op. cit. (note 61), pp. 298-303. 75 Ibid., p. 303. 76 J.M. Hancock, ‘The Historic Development of Biostratigraphic Correlation’, in: E.G. Kauffman and J.E. Hazel (eds), Concepts and Methods of Biostratigraphy, Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross Inc., Pennsylvania, 1977, p. 5. 77 Mantell, op. cit. (note 61), p. 57. 78 Ibid., p. 303. 79 Ibid., p. 37.

84 to favour the latter alternative and his cross-section, showing an igneous type intrusion of the Purbeck through the iron sand, appears crude and naïve. He might not have made this judgment if he had had the time or inclination to trace and correlate his ‘Tilgate Beds’ with similar outcrops in other districts of Sussex. It was Lyell, Mantell’s new friend of seven months, and a newcomer to the geology of south-eastern England, who largely rectified the situation. In brief, as a result of Lyell’s fieldwork in Winchelsea in April 1822,80 combined with subsequent consultations in London with Webster,81 and a further survey by Lyell and Mantell, the latter was able to write82 to the GSL on 1 June and advise:

these strata [Mantell’s Tilgate Beds which he confused with the Purbeck limestone] may with greater propriety be associated with the subordinate beds of limestone, sandstone, and clay, which, in certain parts of Sussex, alternate in the iron-sand formation.83

In his next major work, Illustrations of the Geology of Sussex, published in 1827, Mantell incorporated various “new and important facts” concerning the stratigraphy of Sussex. However, these new facts essentially resulted from stratigraphic work carried out by Fitton84 and Lyell,85 and not Mantell, whose geological work now largely focused on fossil remains. Illustrations of the Geology of Sussex was a much smaller book than its 1822 predecessor (92 compared to 327 pages) and exhibited a marked change in emphasis compared to the earlier publication. Only five pages were devoted to the Chalk Formation, compared to 23 given to the Hastings Formation, previously Mantell’s ‘Iron Sand’, but renamed by Fitton. Additionally, 30

80 CL to GAM, 19 April, 1822, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 60. (Supp. Vol.-Letter 6). 81 CL to GAM, 5 June, 1822 , Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 60. (Supp. Vol.-Letter 7). 82 In his letter dated 5 June 1822, Lyell advised Mantell that “you had better lose no time in declaring this to be your opinion”. However, Mantell had already written to the GSL on this matter. 83 G.A. Mantell, ‘On the Iron-Sand Formation of Sussex. In a Letter to Dr. Fitton, Secretary of the Geological Society’, TGSL, 1826, 2, series 2, pp. 131-134 on p. 131. Although this volume of the GSL’s Transactions states that Mantell’s ‘Notice’ was read on 14 June 1822, Lyell, who was at this GSL meeting, advised Mantell in a letter dated 16 June 1822 that Fitton was unable to read the paper on 14 June “which is most unlucky as this is the last meeting for many months”, (Supp. Vol.-Letter 9). Consequently, Mantell’s stratigraphic error was not publicly corrected until 1826. 84 W.H. Fitton, ‘Inquiries respecting the Geological Relations of the Beds between the Chalk and Purbeck Limestone in the Southeast of England’, Annals of Philosophy, 1824, 8, new series, pp. 365- 383 and 458-462. 85 CL to GAM, 4 July 1822; 12 February 1823; 11 June 1823; 20 April 1824 and 24 November 1824, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 60. (Supp. Vol.-Letters 10, 11, 12, 15 and 17).

85 more pages were devoted to descriptions of the fossils of the strata of Tilgate Forest, including the Iguanodon. At this stage Mantell had discovered seven separate fossil teeth of this extinct animal and conceived it as a giant, herbivorous lizard. In essence, his 1827 book is a descriptive volume on the fossils of Tilgate Forest, and indicates that Mantell’s main geological interest was now within the broad taxonomic field of fossil remains, rather than stratigraphy. In 1827, Mantell was still a strong exponent of catastrophism. On the first page of his 1827 booklet on local geology, Geology of the Rape of Bramber, Mantell highlighted his conviction that: “nature has had her intestine wars; and that the surface of the earth has been convulsed by successive revolutions and various catastrophes”.86 Lyell was not yet successful in converting Mantell to a less dramatic viewpoint. In May 1826, before the publication of Illustrations of the Geology of Sussex and Rape of the Bramber, Lyell had expressed the following opinion to Mantell on some sharks’ teeth found in the Tilgate beds:

As to the Sharks teeth of Tilgate (query if sharks?) what can be said? I attribute the oysters to the minor oscillations of the land lifting up and depressing the estuary alternately, the grander alternations arise from external earthquakes.87

By mid-1829 the general context of some of Lyell’s letters to Mantell88 indicates that Mantell was at least sympathetic to the ‘fluvialist’ viewpoint.

(2) DISCOVERY OF THE IGUANODON

In many respects the most consequential scientific paper submitted by Mantell during the 1820s was his ‘Notice on the Iguanodon’89 that Davies Gilbert communicated to the Royal Society on 10 February, 1825. As a result of this paper Mantell was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society in November

86 Mantell, op. cit. (note 63), p. 1. 87 CL to GAM, 16 May 1826, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 61. (Supp. Vol.-Letter 30). 88 CL to GAM, 16 May, 23 May and 7 June, 1929, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 62. (Supp. Vol.- Letters 58, 59 and 60). 89 G.A. Mantell, ‘Notice on the Iguanodon, a newly discovered fossil reptile, from the sandstone of Tilgate forest, in Sussex. In a Letter to Davies Gilbert, Esq. M.P., V.P.R.S. &c, &c, &c. Communicated by D. Gilbert, Esq.’ PTRSL, 1825, 115, pp. 179-186.

86 of that year, but more importantly, it established Mantell’s reputation as the discoverer of a previously unknown, huge, herbivorous reptile. According to Mantell, his discovery stemmed from the chance finding, by his wife, of unusual and unknown teeth in the coarse conglomerate of the Tilgate Forest in 1822.90 Other teeth of this unknown animal were subsequently collected by him, but it was not until June 1824 that Cuvier asked “Have we not here a new animal, a herbivorous reptile?”.91 Following receipt of Cuvier’s 1824 letter, Mantell took some of the teeth to the museum of the Royal College of Surgeons and, in conjunction with Stutchbury,92 found that the modern Iguana possessed teeth with similar form and structure to his fossil specimens.93 By the end of the 1820s Mantell had not found any articulated remains of the Iguanodon, and as a consequence, he was not in a position to determine if his ‘monstrous lizard’ belonged to a new and unrecognised order of vertebrates. However, he had established a reputation in the new field of extinct fossil monsters and identified a potential taxonomic domain.

(3) THE CATALOGUING OF SUSSEX FOSSILS

Mantell’s work in this category largely resulted from another notable facet of his scientific work, his collection of Sussex fossils that comprised the basis of the Mantellian museum at Lewes.94 The most important of the three catalogues produced by Mantell in the 1820s was ‘A Tabular Arrangement of the Organic Remains of the County of

90 Mantell, op. cit. (note 62), p. 71. 91 A translation from Cuvier’s letter to Mantell dated 20 June 1824 in Mantell’s, ‘Notice on the Iguanodon’, 1825, p. 181. When the first discovered tooth was shown to Cuvier in June 1823, he judged it to be the upper incisor of a rhinoceros. Mantell, Pictorial Atlas of Fossil Remains, 1850, on p. 195. An account of the history of the teeth, now in the Museum of New Zealand, Wellington, is contained in J.C. Yaldwyn, G.J. Tee and A.P. Mason, ‘The status of Gideon Mantell’s “first” Iguanodon tooth in the Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa’, Archives of Natural History, 1997, 24, pp. 397-421. 92 Samuel Stutchbury (1798-1859). English naturalist and curator. Assistant to William Clift, Museum of the Royal College of Surgeons 1820-25. D.F. Branagan, ‘Samuel Stutchbury: a natural history voyage to the Pacific 1825-27 and its consequences’, Archives of Natural History, 1993, 20, pp. 69-91. 93 Mantell, op. cit. (note 89), p. 182. 94 The Mantellian Museum was situated in the front rooms of Mantell’s house at Lewes and ‘finished’ on 5 August 1829. PJ-GAM. Bakewell visited the museum for three days in September of that year and gives a good description of its importance and contents in his article ‘A Visit to the Mantellian Museum at Lewes’, The Magazine of Natural History, 1830, 3, pp. 9-17.

87 Sussex’,95 read at the GSL on 6 June 1828. In their paper on Mantell’s fossil collections,96 Cleevely and Chapman disclose that Mantell mentioned in a letter to J. Hawkins, dated 17 January 1830, that lists such as his were “the first attempt to provide a list of the extinct animals…of a British Province”. Lyell and Fitton were in no doubt of the catalogue’s importance, as indicated in the following extract from Lyell’s letter to Mantell in April 1828:

If your list of fossils comes up I doubt not they would print it in next vol. I spoke to Fitton on the subject. I agree with him that the great value wd arise from your accurate local knowledge for you are the only great collector in England who combines Geol.y with fossils, so if your list is general put a mark on what you can answer for from personal observation.97

In the Catalogue Mantell placed an asterisk on those fossils either not in his possession or not examined by him. These amounted to only 12 species out of a total of 42 vertebrates, 328 invertebrates, and 16 vegetable fossils. The range of Mantell’s Catalogue extended from the Alluvial Deposits, through the Tertiary Formations and the beds of the Chalk Formation, down to the three divisions of the fresh-water Hastings Deposits. References and synonyms are given for all fossil species and their known localities in Sussex and elsewhere are also noted.

(4) REVIEW OF MANTELL’S GEOLOGICAL WORK IN THE 1820s

During the 1820s Mantell’s stature and reputation as a geologist increased considerably, being reflected in his election to the Royal Society of London in 1825 and to the GSL Council in the following year. By the end of the decade Mantell had established a broad, but essentially tentative ‘taxonomic’ domain, encompassing the vertebrate and

95 G.A. Mantell, ‘A Tabular Arrangement of the Organic Remains of the County of Sussex’, TGSL, 1829, 3, pp. 201-217. The other 2 catalogues published at this time were the booklets A Scientific Catalogue of the Organic Remains of the County of Sussex, R. Taylor, London, 1829; and An Abridged Catalogue of the Organic Remains of Sussex.-“A Catalogue of the Museum of G. Mantell”, L. Relfe, London, 1829. 96 R.J. Cleevely and S.D. Chapman, ‘The accumulation and disposal of Gideon Mantell’s fossil collections and their role in the history of British palaeontology’, Archives of Natural History,1992, 19, pp. 307-364 on p. 315. 97 CL to GAM, 21 April 1828, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 61. (Supp. Vol.-Letter 47).

88 invertebrate fossils of his home county, Sussex. However, such a domain was too extensive to maintain, other than in the short term, and moreover, a ‘major’ palaeontological domain cannot normally be confined to a county. Mantell had not established a reputation in stratigraphy, which in any case offered him limited local scope, because of the work of Fitton. The study of fossil remains was more suited to the demands of his profession and also to Mantell’s inclination, as he indicated to Woodward in 1828: “the remains of reptiles and mammals interest me more than those of the other divisions of animated nature”.98 In summary, by the end of the 1820s Mantell was reasonably well positioned, from a geological viewpoint, to exploit the ‘taxonomic’ domain that Lyell had identified for him in his previously quoted 1829 letter. The reasons why Mantell did not follow Lyell’s advice are explored in the next chapter.

3.2.3 THE GEOLOGICAL WORK OF LYELL IN THE 1820s

During the 1820s Lyell published a total of 13 papers and articles, which can be classified into three general groups: five geological papers99 concluded before mid-1826; five essay reviews published in The Quarterly Review from 1825 to 1827,100 of which two dealt with geological issues; and three joint-

98 S. Spokes, Gideon Algernon Mantell, LL.D, F.R.C.S., F.R.S., Surgeon and Geologist, John Bale, Sons and Danielsson Ltd., London, 1927, on p. 32, citing a letter from Mantell to S. Woodward, dated 20 October 1828. 99 C. Lyell,i‘On a recent Formation of Freshwater Limestone in Forfarshire, and on some recent Deposits of Freshwater Marl; with a comparison of recent with ancient Freshwater formations; and an appendix on the Gyrogonite or Seed vessel of the Chara’[1824 and 1825],TGSL, 1826, 2, pp. 73- 96;i‘Art. XXIV – On a Dike of Serpentine, cutting through Sandstone, in the County of Forfar’, Edinburgh Journal of Science, 1825, 3, pp. 112-126;i‘On Fossil bones of the Elephant and other Animals found near Salisbury’, PGSL, 1826-1833, 1, pp. 25-26;i‘On the Strata of the Plastic Clay Formation exhibited in the Cliffs between Christchurch Head, Hampshire, & Studland Bay, Dorsetshire’[1826], TGSL, 1827, 2, pp. 279-286;i‘On the Freshwater Strata of Hordwell Cliff, Beacon Cliff, and Barton Cliff, Hampshire’[1826], TGSL, 1827, 2, pp. 287-292. 100 C. Lyell,i‘Article X. Letter to Mr. Brougham on the Subject of a London University, together with Suggestions respecting the Plan. By T. Campbell Esq., London, 1825’, Quarterly Review, 1825- 26, 33, pp. 257-275;i‘Article VIII – 1. Transactions of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, vol. I; 2. Memoirs of the Literary and Philosophical Society of Manchester, 1824, 4, 2d. series, London; 3. Transactions of the Royal Geological Society of Cornwall, instituted February 11, vols 1 and 2, Penzance; 4. Report of the Liverpool Royal Institution, 1822; 5. Bristol Institution. Proceedings of the Second Meeting, held February 10, 1825 &c; 6. Annual Report of the Council of the Yorkshire Philosophical Society for 1824’, The Quarterly Review, 1826, 34, pp. 153-179.i‘Article IX – Transactions of the Geological Society of London, 1824, 1, series 2’, The Quarterly Review, 1826, 34, pp. 507-540.i‘Article VIII – State of the Universities’, The Quarterly Review, 1827, 36, pp. 216-268.i‘Article IV – Memoir on the Geology of Central France; including the Volcanic

89 papers with Murchison, published in 1829 following their field-work in France in 1828.101 The ensuing analysis of the nature of Lyell’s geological work in the 1820s follows this categorisation, since it generally accords with three phases of Lyell’s geological development during the decade. His work until 1826 provides a good indication of his early geological experience and concomitant approach to geology; Lyell’s two geological reviews in the mid- 1820s gave him a platform to highlight factors he regarded as significant at that time; and finally, during the latter years of the decade Lyell crystallised his methodological approach for the first volume of Principles of Geology, completed on 22 June 1830.102 Because the literature dealing with Lyell’s work is extensive, reviews of the relevant literature have been restricted to those dealing with his early geological work and the more significant factors that influenced his geological thinking. Particular emphasis is also given to the comments and opinions expressed by Lyell in his unpublished letters to Mantell during this period.

(1) LYELL’S GEOLOGICAL WORK PRIOR TO MID-1826

The five geological papers completed by Lyell during the first half of the 1820s were either read or published during the 18-month period ending June 1826. His first two publications described disparate aspects of Scottish geology, while the other three concerned the Tertiary, fresh-water deposits in the south of England. Earlier indications of Lyell’s approach to geology are contained in his letters to Mantell during the years 1822 to 1824. One insight revealed in these letters to Mantell is that the fresh-water beds of Tilgate forest, in particular, had a major early influence on the development of Lyell’s geological thinking. His interest in these deposits did not primarily result from Mantell’s fossil discoveries, but, as Wilson has pointed out, from “the convincing demonstration of the magnitude of the

Formations of Auvergne, the Velay, and the Vivarais, with a volume of Maps and Plates. by G.P. Scrope, F.R.S., F.G.S.’, The Quarterly Review, 1827, 36, pp. 437-483. 101 C. Lyell and R.I. Murchison,i‘On the Excavation of Valleys, as illustrated by the Volcanic Rocks of Central France’, ENPJ, 1829, 7, pp. 15-48.i‘On the Tertiary Freshwater Formations of Aix in Provence including the coal-field of Fuveau’, ENPJ, 1829, 7, pp. 287-298.i‘Sur les dépôts lacustres tertiares du cantal et leurs rapports avec les roches primordiales et volcaniques’, Annales des Sciences naturelles, first series, 1829, 18, pp. 173-214. 102 CL to GAM, 22 June 1830, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 62. (Supp. Vols.-Letter 73).

90 earth’s movements that had occurred in the southeast of England”.103 These beds had first been laid down in a river delta, were subsequently depressed thousands of feet for the chalk sediments to be deposited in deep-sea conditions, and then elevated above sea level when the overlying chalk was eroded to expose the freshwater rocks and their contained fossils. Lyell’s resolution of the stratigraphic position of Mantell’s ‘Tilgate Beds’ in 1822 has been discussed [Section 3.2.2-(1)] and his letters to Mantell, dated 19 April, 6 June, 16 June, and 4 July, 1822,104 clearly indicate his competence as a field geologist as well as his incisive and penetrating approach to geological matters. Lyell’s letter to Mantell of 6 June 1822 is especially relevant since it indicates that at this early date he used present- day, observable causes to explain geological phenomenon. In the following extract from this letter, Lyell describes the furrowed surfaces of sandstone from the Stammerham quarries near Horsham in Sussex, and in doing so, reveals his determination to understand all aspects of the phenomenon:

At Sedgwick I found a large quantity of the slabs ready-quarried, & many furrowed on both sides. As I had before felt satisfied that the surfaces had been scooped out by the waves of an ocean (an hypothesis which you have suggested in your work) I was greatly surprised by this fact. I will add too, I was greatly disappointed, as I hope every Geologist is when he finds himself compelled to abandon a theory which refers not without probability to the agency of known causes, some of the many obscure phenomena which his investigations daily disclose. I observed that the opposite sides of few of these slabs corresponded; in some the furrows of the inferior were even at right angles to those of the upper side. They could not therefore in such instances have received their peculiar shape from any constitution of the lamina when in a soft state. Most of the slabs I found would cleave into thinner laminae & the inner faces were also furrowed, & fitted smoothly into each other. If this last fact should prove on further examination as invariable as I found it, I should entertain little doubt that the under side of each layer merely presents a cast of that on which it has been deposited. And when many thin layers succeed each other, we have only to suppose the lowermost to have been deeply worn by the waves & that it then formed a mould into which the next layer was cast, & the others successively into those which preceeded them. But when

103 L.G. Wilson, ‘The Intellectual Background to Charles Lyell’s Principles of Geology, 1830-1833’, in: C.J. Schneer (ed.), Toward a History of Geology: Proceedings of the New Hampshire Inter- Disciplinary Conference on the History of Geology, September 7-12, 1967, The M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, Mass., and London, 1969, pp. 426-443 on p. 434. 104 Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 60. ( Supp, Vol.-Letters 6, 8, 9 and 10).

91 the furrows of the surface take a new direction we may again suppose the waves to have acted. If it be objected that when a new stratum of sand was washed up it would fill all the inequalities & reduce them to a level, I can only answer that I therefore assume that the beds were precipitated from a fluid in a certain state of tranquility. Nor is this supposition necessarily at variance with the occasional agitation which has worn some of the slabs, for the deposition may have gone on when the land was entirely covered by water, & the excavating power may have operated only when the waves were advancing or retreating. That the most indurated of these rocks was in a perfectly soft state when first formed, no one will dispute who observes the manner in which the organic remains are imbedded in them.105

Following a visit to France in 1823, when Prévost pointed out to Lyell that alternations of freshwater and marine sediments did not necessarily require catastrophist explanations,106 Lyell spent the summer of 1824 at his family home in Scotland, where “I have made a very detailed Geol l. Map of 2 thirds of the county of Forfar. this year besides many more labours on rock marl, serpentine &c”.107 In his paper on rock marl, read to the GSL on 17 December 1824, and on 7 January 1825,108 Lyell used the agency of present- day causes as his main, underlying theme. In doing so, he not only demonstrated how the recent marl deposits had been formed in Bakie Loch, but compared the limestone of Bakie with other freshwater limestones, both recent and ancient, in continental Europe.109 Thus the first paper presented by Lyell was causal in style and scope. It was also well received. Writing to Mantell, Lyell commented “I was much flattered with the manner in which the memoir was received & discussed”.110 Nevertheless, some explanatory aspects of marl formation still eluded Lyell, as evidenced in his letter to Mantell written the day after he had completed the final reading of his paper:

If you can give me any hints on shell marle I shall thank you as I could put them in before the referee gets my paper next week. I know you have not neglected alluvial deposits near Lewes for

105 CL to GAM, 6 June 1822, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ. Folder 60. (Supp. Vol.-Letter 8). 106 This point is amplified in Wilson, op. cit. (note 103), p. 435. 107 CL to GAM, 24 November 1824, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 60. (Supp.Vol.-Letter 17) . 108 C. Lyell, ‘On a recent Formation of Freshwater Limestone in Forfarshire, and on some recent Deposits of Fresh-water Marl; with a comparison of recent with ancient Freshwater formations; and an appendix on the Gyrogonite or Seed vessel of the Chara’, TGSL, 1826, 2, pp. 73-96. 109 Ibid., pp. 83-86. 110 CL to GAM, 8 January 1825, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 60. (Supp. Vol.-Letter 18).

92 which I have quoted you. The following are some of the leading points on wh. you may have some opinions.

1. Is shell marle entirely derived from shells? if not why does it abound in a part of Scotland in wh. limestone is almost unknown, & is wanting in the Chalk & Oolite tracts of England? 2. Is there marle deposited by water in the Chalk? 3. In alluvial valleys in Chalk, in wh. freshwater shells occur, does calcareous marle accompany them? 4. Testacea multiply excessively in Scotland in the clearest lakes. when the water is charged with too much lime, as is perhaps the case in Chalk countries are not the mollusca killed, or injured? 5. If marle be derived from shells, why does it not form in England where I am told shells lie a foot deep at the bottom of ponds, as at Deptford? 6. If marle be a mechanical deposit from water ought it not to be most abundant in calcareous districts in England, & least, in the old red sandst. of Scotland in wh. there is scarcely any carb te. of lime? yet there it is accumulated enormously. 7. If marle be a chemical deposit from water why is it rare in England where evaporation is greater, where tuffaceous incrustations are common which are entirely unknown in the part of Scotland in wh. marle abounds? 8. Again, if it be chemical, why does its formation entirely cease in Scotland when a lake is drained, tho’ the springs wh. bring up calcareous matter, still flow? 9. Do canals in Chalk countries fill up with a kind of marly matter? 10. Near Romney in Hants. I have found a large quantity of shell marle in the alluvial tracts, overlying peat, wh. comes near to the Scotch. It is in the plastic clay formation. Do you know any English localities? 11. Is marle ever found where there are no springs? 12. Do freshwater testacea live in ponds in Chalk? 111

The above, relentless series of probing questions to Mantell reveals Lyell’s resolve to investigate the role of modern day causes in geological processes, besides bringing to mind a barrister’s cross-examination techniques. In his subsequent letter to Mantell, dated 14 January 1825, Lyell again revealed his determination to understand every aspect of marl deposit formation:

I am in hopes that in thinking over some of my queries you may be led to some observations that may assist me for I shall endeavour thoroughly to go to the bottom of the subject which I find deepens as I attempt to fathom it.112

111 Ibid. 112 CL to GAM, 14 January 1825, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 60. (Supp. Vol.-Letter 19).

93 Lyell’s other paper on Scottish geology, ‘On a Dike of Serpentine, cutting through Sandstone, in the County of Forfar.’, was published in 1825 and can be regarded as a competent, straightforward description of a presumed dyke of serpentine that Lyell traced for approximately seven miles along what is now known as the Highland Boundary Fault belt. This geological area is exceedingly complex and there is little that Lyell could have done other than describe the serpentine outcrops. Lyell’s papers concerning aspects of the Tertiary freshwater deposits of the south of England, ‘On the Strata of the Plastic Clay Formation exhibited in the Cliffs between Christchurch Head, Hampshire, and Studland Bay, Dorsetshire’, and ‘On the Freshwater Strata of Hordwell Cliff, Beacon Cliff, and Barton Cliff, Hampshire’, were read to the GSL on 17 March and 2 June, 1826, respectively. Both papers can be summed up as straight- forward stratigraphic descriptions, but significantly, Lyell concluded each paper with an input relating to present-day causes. In the former paper, dealing with the Plastic Clay, Lyell made the point that:

The size of the valleys is in general in proportion to that of the streams flowing in them, and their excavation appears referable for the most part, if not entirely, to the long continued agency of these streams.113

At the end of his other paper on the freshwater strata of Hordwell Cliff, Lyell argued that the fossil characteristics of recent freshwater deposits provided good evidence for the term ‘Freshwater formations’ to incorporate deposits formed at the mouths of rivers, rather than be restricted to deposits originating in inland lakes.114 In a letter115 to Mantell written six days before he was due to read his paper on the Plastic Clay formation, Lyell again requested Mantell’s assistance in a series of probing, penetrating questions on the type and source of diluvial rocks in Sussex. In this regard, Lyell’s main aim was not to add to the descriptive detail of the phenomenon, but to obtain evidence

113 ‘On the Strata of the Plastic Clay Formation exhibited in the Cliffs between Christchurch Head, Hampshire, & Studland Bay, Dorsetshire’, TGSL, 1827, 2, p. 286. 114 ‘On the Freshwater Strata of Hordwell Cliff, Beacon Cliff, and Barton Cliff, Hampshire’, TGSL 1827, 2, p. 292. 115 CL to GAM, 11 March 1826, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 61. (Supp. Vol.-Letter 28).

94 concerning the nature and origin of these deposits. In short, his approach was causal, rather than taxonomic.

(2) QUARTERLY REVIEW ARTICLES ON GEOLOGY, 1826-1827

Lyell’s review116 of volume one, series 2, Transactions of the Geological Society of London provides several pertinent insights into his geological thinking in mid-1826, since he used this opportunity to outline his assessment of recent geological findings, as well as to ‘sound out’ his developing concepts. Although the two parts of this volume of the Transactions comprise 26 papers and 19 notices, Lyell only mentioned or discussed 11, and of these, six were written by relatively minor or unknown geologists.117 Lyell’s inclinations were clearly manifested; stratigraphic papers were generally ignored, including two such papers by De la Beche. Buckland’s paper on the excavation of valleys by ‘diluvian’ action118 received similar treatment. In fact, the first eight pages of Lyell’s 33-page review do not refer to or mention any paper in the Transactions. Instead, Lyell summarised recent geological developments and, in particular, highlighted two specific points. First, recent fossil discoveries indicated that extinct animals and plants had both lived in and had their remains preserved, in essentially tranquil conditions. Second, great changes had occurred to these deposits following deposition, as shown by the alternating sequences of deep-water marine and fresh-water deposits, besides evidence of major climatic changes. Lyell then referred to the papers by Graham119 and Jack120 that described the uplifting effects of recent earthquakes, to make the point that modern-day causes could explain changes in land levels. Furthermore, he suggested an alternative to catastrophic causes in the earth’s history:

116 Lyell, ‘Article IX – Transactions of the Geological Society of London, 1824, 1, series 2’, The Quarterly Review, 1826, 34, pp. 507-540. 117 H.T. Colebrooke, J.B. Fraser, W. Jack, J.J. Bigsby, T. Weaver and Mrs. M. Graham. 118 W. Buckland, ‘On the Excavation of Valleys by diluvian Action, as illustrated by a Succession of Valleys which intersect the South Coast of Dorset and Devon’, TGSL, 1822, 1, pp. 95-102. 119 M. Graham, ‘An Account of some Effects of the late Earthquakes in Chili: extracted from a Letter to Henry Warburton, Esq. V.P.G.S.’, TGSL, 1824, 1, pp. 413-415. 120 W. Jack, ‘On the Geology and Topography of the Island of Sumatra, and some of the adjacent Islands’, TGSL, 1824, 1, pp. 397-405.

95 But in the present state of our knowledge, it appears premature to assume that existing agents could not, in the lapse of ages, produce such effects as fall principally under the examination of the geologist.121

Lyell was unable to provide an explanation for climate changes at this time, although he indicated that the answer may “lie in astronomy”.122 The review ended with two comments from Lyell. His final observation was that all fossil plants and animals were ‘links in the chain’, and parts of one connected plan in an overall progressive and not fixed scheme.123 As Wilson has noted,124 Lyell’s assumption of this concept was in general accordance with the viewpoint of other educated contemporaries. However, Lyell’s preceding observation, although still representative of orthodox opinion, is rather surprising. Lyell combined his emerging principle of modern physical causes, or actualism, with aspects of Paleyan natural theology to explain England’s industrial might. After mentioning that Great Britain had been able to surpass all other nations in the cheapness of machinery due to the abundance of easily accessible coal and its opportune association with limestone and iron ore, Lyell observed:

Now it scarcely admits of a doubt that the agents employed in effecting this most perfect and systematic arrangement have been earthquakes, operating with different degrees of violence and at various intervals of time during a lapse of ages….The effects of these subterranean forces prove that they are governed by general laws, and that these laws have been conceived by consummate wisdom and forethought.125

Lyell’s alliance of modern causes and natural theology in this 1826 article does not appear to have been given any attention in the secondary literature. It is also an opinion that he did not explicitly repeat. It can be conjectured that Lyell introduced his Paleyan input in order to add ‘theological respectability’ to his concept of modern causes, bearing in mind the conservative nature of The Quarterly Review’s readership.

121 Lyell, op. cit. (note 116), p. 518. 122 Ibid., p. 528. 123 Ibid., pp. 538-539. 124 L.G. Wilson, Charles Lyell. The Years to 1841: The revolution in geology, Yale University Press, New Haven and London, 1972, p. 158. 125 Lyell, op. cit. (note 116), p. 537.

96 On a different note it is worth commenting that during the 1820s Lyell often requested assistance from Mantell on various geological points, including information for this particular article. After mentioning several areas where he would welcome information on certain fossils, Lyell demonstrated that he also followed the principle of ‘quid pro quo’:

If you will give me the title of your new work, I will advantage it in a note which cannot fail to do it good. Slips of the first part of my paper will be printed before I go circuit July 2d so lose no time. As I know you have imagination enough I trust to you seizing on points such as would do for the Quart. Rev.126

Lyell, in fact, advantaged Mantell with several favourable references in his Quarterly Review article.127 In his introductory remarks to his paper, ‘Poulett Scrope on the Volcanoes of Auvergne’,128 Rudwick has pointed out that Lyell needed a follow-up article to his review of the Transactions, in order to illustrate more specifically the advantages of applying modern causes to past geological events. To this end Scrope’s Memoir on the Geology of Central France129 was favourably reviewed by Lyell for his fifth and final article in the Quarterly Review.130 Rudwick summed up Lyell’s review and motivations in this manner:

It is not surprising that Lyell reviewed Scrope’s Memoir enthusiastically for The Quarterly review, as an almost perfect example of the style of reasoning that he himself wished to urge on geologists. Scrope had eliminated the ancient-modern distinction, and with it a major source of evidence for the diluvial theory; he had used an ‘unlimited allowance of time’ to do so; and he had stressed the heuristic value of the actualistic method of analogical comparison between present and past.131

126 CL to GAM, 22 June 1826, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 61. (Supp. Vol.-Letter 32). 127 Lyell, op. cit. (note 116), pp. 523, 525, and 531. 128 M.J.S. Rudwick, ‘Poulett Scrope on the Volcanoes of Auvergne: Lyellian Time and Political Economy’, The British Journal for the History of Science, 1974, 27, pp. 205-242 on p. 206. 129 G.P. Scrope, Memoir on the Geology of Central France, including the Volcanic Formations of the Auvergne, the Velay and the Vivarais, with a volume of Maps and Plates, Longman, London, 1827. 130 Lyell, ‘Article IV – Memoir on the Geology of Central France, including the Volcanic Formations of Auvergne, the Velay, and the Vivarais, with a volume of Maps and Plates. by G.P. Scrope, F.R.S., F.G.S.’, The Quarterly Review, 1827, 36, pp. 437-483. 131 Rudwick, op. cit. (note 128), p. 220.

97 Lyell was pleased with his article. In a letter to Mantell he remarked “I fear it will annoy Buckland but ‘amicus Plato sed magnis amica veritas’ should be a geologist’s motto”.132

(3) LYELL’S GEOLOGICAL WORK FROM 1827-1830

Scrope’s Memoir on the Geology of Central France was largely instrumental in Lyell visiting this area of France in May 1828, accompanied by the Murchisons. The geological observations and field-work carried out by Lyell and Murchison in central and southern France, and subsequently in Italy, are well documented in Wilson’s 1972 biography.133 Additional details are contained in Lyell’s letters to Mantell dated 15 June and 22 August 1828, and 14, 19, and 24 February 1829.134 The field-work of the two men resulted in the publication of three joint papers135 following their return to England in 1829, but their scope and content adds little new to the theme of this analysis. In summary, the observations made by Lyell on the continent more than confirmed his particular concept of modern causes. In a frequently quoted letter, written in Naples, Lyell informed Murchison of the nature of his planned book:

It will not pretend to give even an abstract of all that is known in geology, but it will endeavour to establish the principle of reasoning in the science; and all my Geology will come in as illustration of my views of those principles, and as evidence strengthening the system necessarily arising out of the admission of such principles, which you know, are neither more nor less than that no causes whatever have from the earliest time to which we can look back, to the present, ever acted, but those now acting; and that they never acted with different degrees of energy from that which they now exert.136

132 CL to GAM, 30 June 1827, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 61. (Supp. Vol.-Letter 37). 133 Wilson, op. cit. (note 124), pp. 183-261. 134 Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folders 61 and 62. (Supp. Vol.-Letters 49-53). 135 C. Lyell and R.I. Murchison,i‘On the Excavation of Valleys, as illustrated by the Volcanic Rocks of Central France’, ENPJ, 1829, 7, pp. 15-48.i‘On the Tertiary Freshwater Formations of Aix in Provence including the coal-field of Fuveau’, EPNJ, 1829, 7, pp. 287-298.i‘Sur les dépôts lacustres tertiares du cantal et leurs rapports avec les roches primordiales et volcaniques’, Annales des Sciences naturelles, 1st series, 1829, 18, pp. 173-214. 136 C. Lyell to R.I. Murchison, 15 January 1829, quoted in K. Lyell, op. cit. (note 5), vol.1, p. 234.

98 Lyell’s proposed methodology that past geological events can be fully explained by present-day causes that have always acted with the same intensity is referred to as ‘absolute actualism’ from now on in this thesis.137 The term ‘modern causes’ is restricted to the recognition that physical causes acting today can and should be invoked to explain past geological events. Additionally, following discussions in Paris with Desnoyers138 and Deshayes,139 Lyell confirmed that the Tertiary strata could be correlated and subdivided on the basis of their contained percentage of living species of shells. This development provided Lyell with a notable example of how his methodology of extrapolating from the present to the past could also be applied to the study of fossils. As soon as he arrived back in London Lyell wrote to Mantell, requesting the loan of his Tertiary English shells for Deshayes to study, but did not amplify the reasons for his request:

We [Lyell and Deshayes] planned together a grand scheme of cataloguing the tertiary shells of various European basins that I might draw geological inferences therefrom. As it will become necessary for him in the execution of this plan that he should see himself as many English tertiary shells as possible of well ascertained localities I am going to exert myself in procuring the loan of several collections, which will return from Paris with Deshayes’ names,….Before the work I have in hand comes out I hope to get approximate lists for comparison of shells in most of the basins of Europe, not to publish the lists, but to give the results which I am sure will be important & which I already have discovered from the study of museums in Italy and France will be unexpected for the most part either by collectors or geologists.140

Following his return to England Lyell exhibited a very confident geological manner. In March 1829, one month after his return, he outlined the previously quoted strategic career plan for the older, and more professionally and geologically established Mantell, to follow.141 At a GSL meeting two months later Lyell had a splendid time defending the ‘fluvialists’ against the ‘diluvialists’, represented by Conybeare, Buckland and

137 The term ‘absolute actualism’ to describe Lyell’s causal methodology was introduced by W.F. Cannon in his paper, ‘Charles Lyell, Radical Actualism, and Theory’, The British Journal for the History of Science, 1976, 32, p. 113. 138 J.P.F.S. Desnoyers (1800-1887). French geologist and palaeontologist. 139 G. P. Deshayes (1796-1875). French doctor and naturalist. See Supp. Vol.- Letter 74. 140 CL to GAM, 24 February 1829, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 62. (Supp. Vol.-Letter 53). 141 CL to GAM, 23 March 1829, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 62. (Supp. Vol.-Letter 55).

99 Greenough.142 Finally, in February 1830, Lyell was able to inform Mantell that he had developed a theory based on natural causes that would explain climate changes “easily and naturally”.143

(4) REVIEW OF LYELL’S GEOLOGICAL WORK IN THE 1820s

Lyell’s geological publications, correspondence and field investigations indicate that during the 1820s his geological interests became increasingly focused on ‘causal’ geology, and in particular, on the explanatory methodology of modern causes. In fact, his orientation to ‘causal’ geology was evident as early as 1822, when he investigated the formation of furrowed surfaces on the Stammerham sandstone. This was followed by studies on marl formation, the action of earthquakes in raising land levels, and on the erosive power of rivers. By the end of the decade Lyell had applied the methodology of extrapolating from the present to the past to subdivide the Tertiary formations, and to develop a theory explaining climate changes. Lyell demonstrated his competency in field geology in his pre-1825 stratigraphic studies in the south of England, but in many respects these investigations can be regarded as ‘apprenticeship exercises’. His primary interest in these deposits was not in determining their detailed stratigraphy, but in comprehending the implications of alternating sequences of deep marine and shallow fresh-water deposits. Lyell’s letters to Mantell indicate a marked waning of interest in the geology of the Weald and the Hampshire basin by the mid-1820s; he had got what he wanted from these investigations and was ready for ‘new pastures’. Scrope’s opportune publication on the geology of central France then gave him the impetus to examine his developing concept of modern causes on the continent. His field work there confirmed his suppositions. During the second half of the 1820s one other factor had a major influence on Lyell’s overall geological viewpoint. In 1827 he ‘devoured’ Mantell’s copy of Lamarck’s Philosophie zoologique,144 which both delighted

142 CL to GAM, 15 May 1829, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 62. (Supp. Vol.-Letter 58). 143 CL to GAM, 5 and 15 February 1830, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 62. (Supp. Vol.-Letters 67, 68). 144 J.B.A.P. Lamarck, Philosophie zoologique, ou exposition des considerations relatives à l’histoire naturelle des animaux, 2 vols, Dentu, Paris, 1809.

100 and startled him. Lyell’s often quoted letter to Mantell outlining his reaction to Lamarck’s theory contains several significant points:

But tho’ I admire ever his [Lamarck’s] flights & feel none of the odium theologicum which some modern writers in this country have visited him with I confess I read him rather as I hear an advocate on the wrong side to know what can be made of the case in good hands. I am glad he has been courageous enough & logical enough to admit that his argument if pushed as far as it must go if worth anything would prove that men may have come from the Ourang outang.145

Lyell’s attitude to Lamarck’s theory in the above extract can be described as one of tolerant opposition. His response was to formulate a case based on present-day or modern causes:

I am going to write in confirmation of ancient causes having been the same as modern & to show that those plants & animals which we know are becoming preserved now are the same as were formerly, e.g. scarcely any insects now, no lichens, no mosses &c ever get to places where they can become embedded in strata…. Now have you ever in Lewes levels found a bird’s skeleton or any cetacea. If not why in Tilgate and weald beds….You see the drift of my argument – ergo mammalia existed when the oolite & coal &c were formed.146

Although his refutation of Lamarck better illustrates Lyell’s powers of advocacy than the logic of modern causes, it provides a clear indication that the possibility of man descending from an ‘ourang outang’ was unacceptable to him. At this stage one of Mantell’s highest priorities was to discover a complete skeleton, or at least a jawbone, of an Iguanodon. After reading Lamarck, Lyell had other ideas:

I wish among your new Groombridge fossils there had been a good cetaceous quad. For theoretically it would have been of more importance than the iguanodon.147

145 CL to GAM, 2 March 1827, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 61. (Supp. Vols.-Letter 35). 146 Ibid. 147 Ibid. This particular extract immediately precedes the quoted extract in note 145.

101 Batholomew has made a good case that Lyell’s opposition to all aspects of organic progressionism stemmed from his reading of Lamarck in 1827.148 In summary, by the end of the decade Lyell had firmly identified in his mind, but not established through publication, his ‘causal’ geological domain: the methodology of using the principles of absolute actualism to explain past geological events. Additionally, a strong anti-progressionist stance comprised an integral aspect of his geological approach.

3.2.4 THE NATURE OF THE GEOLOGICAL WORK COMPLETED BY THE OTHER IDENTIFIED GEOLOGISTS IN THE 1820s

The ten members of council whose geological work is analysed in this section can be classified into three main groups: first, the more established, and generally middle-aged members, who with the exception of Greenough, constituted the English school149 of geology, Buckland, Sedgwick, Conybeare, and Fitton;150 a younger group comprising Murchison, De la Beche, and Phillips who developed their geological skills and experience during the 1820s; and finally, the two non-geologists, the elderly metallurgist and chemist Wollaston, and the emerging polymath Whewell. Of these ten members, Buckland was the only one identified in the final screening list for the 1820s, while Wollaston was the only other member identified in the penultimate screening list. The other eight geologists made one or both of these lists in the following decade, 1830 to 1840, apart from the two major exceptions, Greenough and Phillips. Because this thesis is primarily concerned with the geological careers of Lyell and Mantell, assessments of the nature of the geological work of the other identified members of council are essentially summary in form, and focus on the nature of their domains.

(1) BUCKLAND

148 M. Bartholomew, ‘Lyell and Evolution: An Account of Lyell’s Response to the Prospect of an Evolutionary Ancestry for Man’, The British Journal for the History of Science, 1973, 6, pp. 264- 275. 149 Rupke, op. cit. (note 35), pp.16-18. Characteristics of the English school are discussed in the immediate sub-section dealing with Buckland.

102 In Lyell’s letters to Mantell during the 1820s, Buckland is depicted in three main guises; as a headstrong exponent of Mosaic diluvialism, as a most entertaining speaker, and finally, as a rather slapdash geologist. Examples of Lyell’s comments are set down below:

Bucland [sic] in his usual style enlarged on the marvel with a strange mixture of the humorous and the serious that we cd. none of us discern how far he believed himself what he said.151

This is so beautiful a key, [the section from Compton Chine to Brook on the Isle of Wight] that I should have been at a loss to conceive how so much blundering could have arisen if I had not witnessed the hurried manner in which Buckland galloped over the ground. He would have entirely overlooked the Weald clay if I had not taken him back to see it.152

Buckland reconciled all to his diluvium hypothesis [fossilised reptile bones from Ava, India] as what facts would he not, but be his theory wide of the mark or not, he is always worth hearing.153

Conybeare’s memoir [‘On the Hydrographical Basin of the Thames’] is not strong by any means. He admits 3 deluges before the Noachian! and Buckland adds God knows how many catastrophes besides so we have driven them out of the Mosaic record fairly.154

He [Buckland] can swear to a genus from a rolled vertebra in Swanage bay whereas Cuvier cannot when he saw 20 from Loxwood & a femur &c &c.155

However, Lyell’s generally critical and simplistic comments on Buckland are belied, to a large extent, by the broad scope of Buckland’s geological work during the 1820s. Perhaps Lyell envied the rapid career advancement of his former Oxford tutor. Buckland was awarded the Royal Society’s Copley Medal in 1822, became President of the GSL in 1824-25, and a councillor of the Royal Society in 1827. He was also the recipient of other benefits, as Lyell informed Mantell in 1825:

150 In 1825 Buckland was 41, Sedgwick 40, Conybeare 38, Fitton 45 and Greenough 47 years of age. 151 CL to GAM, 8 February 1822, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 60. (Supp. Vol.-Letter 3). 152 CL to GAM, 11 June 1823, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 60. (Supp. Vol.-Letter 12). 153 CL to GAM, 17 February 1828, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 61. (Supp. Vol-Letter 45). 154 CL to GAM, 16 May 1829, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 62. (Supp. Vol.-Letter 58). 155 CL to GAM, 5 February 1830, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 62. (Supp. Vol.- Letter 67).

103 Bucland [sic] you know is made by Ld. Liverpool a canon of Ch. Ch. A good house, £1,000 per an.m & no residence or duty required. Surely such places ought to be made also for Lay Geologists.156

Buckland’s geological output was considerable during the 1820s. He read 16 papers at the GSL, of which one was a joint work with Conybeare;157 eight can be regarded as significant, and seven of lesser importance.158 Additionally, Buckland gave a notable paper to the Royal Society on the Kirkdale cave fossils159 that provided the basis for his Reliquiae Diluvianae,160 published two general articles in the American Journal of Science,161 and replied to criticisms from Fleming in The Edinburgh Philosophical Journal.162 The nature of his work during this decade can be grouped into three categories: diluvialism, palaeo-ecological studies based on modern analogies, and a wide range of English stratigraphic and palaeontological investigations. In essence, the combination of these three categories covers the spectrum of what Rupke has described as the English school of geology. This distinctive mix of geological practices and beliefs was jointly established by Buckland, Sedgwick and Conybeare in the 1820s and exhibited the following characteristics:163

· The school distanced itself from both the Plutonists and Neptunists and was therefore distinct from the schools of Paris, Freiberg and Edinburgh.

156 CL to GAM, 20 July 1825, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 61. (Supp. Vol.-Letter 22). 157 W. Buckland and W.D. Conybeare, ‘Observations on the South-western Coal District of England’, TGSL, 1824, 1, series 2, pp. 210-316. 158 A listing of these papers is provided later in this section of the thesis. One of these papers, ‘On the Structure of the Alps and Adjoining Parts of the Continent’, was laid before the GSL but published in Annals of Philosophy, 1821. 159 W. Buckland, ‘Account of an Assemblage of Fossil Teeth and Bones of Elephant, Rhinoceros, Hippopotamos, Bear, Tiger, and Hyaena, and Sixteen other Animals; Discovered in a Cave at Kirkdale, Yorkshire, in the Year 1821: with a Comparative View of Five Similar Caverns in Various Parts of England, and Others on the Continent’, PTRSL, 1822, 112, pp. 171-236. 160 W. Buckland, Reliquiae Diluvianae; or, Observations on the Organic Remains Contained in Caves, Fissures, and Diluvial Gravel, and on other Geological Phenomena, Attesting the Action of an Universal Deluge, Murray, London, 1823. 161 W. Buckland, ‘Instructions for Conducting Investigations, and Collecting Specimens’, American Journal of Science, 1821, 3, pp. 249-251; and ‘Opinion of Professor Buckland of the University of Oxford, Respecting certain Features of American Geology’, American Journal of Science, 1822, 4, pp. 185-186. 162 W. Buckland, ‘Reply to some Observations in Dr Fleming’s Remarks on the Distribution of British Animals’, The Edinburgh Philosophical Journal, 1825, 12, pp. 304-319. 163 The various features of the English school of geology are summarised from Rupke’s, The Great

104 · Geological investigations focused on the stratigraphy of England and Wales where the Secondary formations occur in a particularly well defined manner. Since these formations were found to be highly fossiliferous, the correlative role of fossils in stratigraphy was emphasised. · The school was committed to diluvialism during the first half of the 1820s and then to a broader synthesis of earth history, progressionism. · It aligned itself with Paleyan natural theology. · Economic geology was regarded with rather little interest.

In fact, the English school of geology can be regarded as a broad, evolving, ‘modal’ domain that embraced the more specific sub-domains of first, diluvialism, and then progressionism. During the decade both Buckland and Sedgwick held significant positions of influence to jointly expound the above tenets. In addition to their respective chairs at Oxford and Cambridge, Buckland was GSL President from 1824 to 1826, while Sedgwick served in that capacity from 1829 to 1831. In his examination of the English school Rupke also argued that the key factor that motivated Buckland, Conybeare, and Sedgwick to formulate their particular mode of geology was the need to make geology compatible with the Oxbridge curriculum for the education of the English clergy.164 In this regard Buckland’s diluvial theory was of crucial importance. As noted by Oldroyd: “It provided a link between the ‘textual’ evidence offered by Biblical history and the history of the earth that was beginning to be written by the nineteenth-century stratigraphers.”165 Diluvialism has been well described in the secondary literature by Page,166 Rudwick,167 Rupke,168 and Hallam.169 In summary, following Buckland’s investigations into the fossil bones of various animals discovered in the Kirkdale caverns in 1821, he was able to integrate his previous

Chain of History, pp. 15-26. 164 Ibid., pp. 24-25. 165 Oldroyd, op. cit. (note 17), p. 385. 166 Page, op. cit. (note 38). 167 M.J.S. Rudwick, The Meaning of Fossils: Episodes in the History of Palaeontology, Macdonald, London, 1972, on pp. 136-138. 168 Rupke, op. cit. (note 35), pp. 39-41, 58-59, 64-78. 169 Hallam, op. cit. (note 38), pp. 41-43.

105 diluvial studies, concerning widespread gravel and other surface flood phenomena,170 with palaeo-ecological techniques based on modern day analogies. In doing so, Buckland was able to argue that Cuvier’s last ‘revolution’ was a unique and transitory deluge akin to a tidal wave, and not a prolonged event. Buckland went on to argue that this scriptural deluge had been universal and not confined to northern latitudes where the geological evidence was strongest. Significantly, he did not propose a cause for this remarkable event, but his concept gained widespread general acceptance in England. Thus the diluvial domain established by Buckland during the first half of the 1820s incorporated various aspects of the overall concept; the nature of recent deposits, the formation of valleys, natural theology, and the application of palaeo-ecological techniques. His distinctive mix of interpretations and methodologies embraced aspects of all geological domains and the concept constituted a key sub-domain of the emerging English school. Buckland’s diluvial domain of the early 1820s, however, was to have a relatively short ‘shelf-life’ compared to most other geological domains examined in this thesis. Although his theory was strongly supported by the ‘clergyman-specialists’, Sedgwick, Whewell and Conybeare, Fitton was not fully convinced that the deluge was “recent, transient, and simultaneous”,171 Lyell much less so,172 while Fleming173 proved to be a most effective critic.174 By the end of the decade Buckland’s diluvialism was a diminished and considerably modified concept. The majority of Buckland’s geological investigations in the 1820s, in fact, were not explicitly concerned with diluvialism,175 but described fossil

170 Buckland, ‘Description of the Quartz Rock of the Lickey Hill in Worcestershire, and of the Strata surrounding it;’ TGSL, [1819] and op. cit. (note 49). 171 [W. Fitton], ‘Art. X. Reliquiæ Diluvianæ ; or, Observations on the Organic Remains contained in Caves, Fissures, and Diluvial Gravel, and on other Geological Phenomena, attesting the Action of an Universal Deluge. By the Reverend William Buckland, B.D., F.R.S., F.L.S. Member of the Geological Society of London &c &c. and Professor of Mineralogy and Geology in the University of Oxford. 4to. pp. 303. 27 plates. London. J. Murray, 1823.’ The Edinburgh Review, 1824, 39, pp. 196-234 on p. 229. 172 See CL to GAM, 16 May 1829, 7 June 1829, and 22 October 1829. (Supp. Vol.-Letters 58, 60 and 62). 173 John Fleming (1785-1857). Scottish cleric and naturalist. See Supp. Vol.-Letter 144, for details of his personal circumstances. 174 Hallam, op. cit. (note 38), p. 44. 175 Buckland’s only other paper on diluvialism in the 1820s, hitherto not mentioned, was ‘On the Excavation of Valleys by diluvian Action, as illustrated by a Succession of Valleys which intersect the South Coast of Dorset and Devon’[1822], TGSL, 1824, 1, pp. 95-102.

106 reptiles and antediluvian formations,176 often with marked palaeo-ecological overtones that were an innovative feature of his work. Cannon has given an informative summary of Buckland’s approach:

His [Buckland’s] importance lay, rather, in helping to redefine the nature and method of a geological explanation….Buckland transferred Cuvier’s method of reconstructing fossil animals to geology proper….Nothing is more characteristic of Buckland’s papers than the use of some immediately observable analogy – the habits of modern hyenas, the cavities formed by air bubbles in clay, the geographical locus of modern animals: that is he tried to reason from the analogies of the existing world to the events of a past world.177

During the 1820s Buckland also completed three minor papers on petrological and mineralogical topics,178 and a causal study on valley formation.179

(2) SEDGWICK

In 1820 Sedgwick was 35 years of age and had been the Woodwardian professor of geology at Cambridge, and a member of the GSL, for two years. His geological work during the 1820s can be classified in three ways. First,

176 W. Buckland,i‘Notice on the Megalosaurus or Great Fossil Lizard of Stonesfield’, TGSL, 1824, 1, pp 390-396;i‘Geological Account of a Series of Animal and Vegetable Remains and of Rocks, collected by J. Crawfurd, Esq. On a Voyage up the Irawadi, to Ava, in 1826 and 1827’ [1828], TGSL, 1828, 2, pp. 377-392;i‘Observations on the Bones of Hyaenas and Other Animals in the Cavern of Lunel near Montpelier, and in the Adjacent Strata of Marine Formations’, PGSL, 1834, 1, pp. 3- 6;i‘An Account of the Discovery of a Number of Fossil Bones of Bears, in the Grotto of Osselles, or Quingey, near BesanÇon in France’, PGSL, 1834, 1, pp. 21-22;i‘On the Cycadeoideæ, a Family of Fossil Plants, found in the Oolite Quarries of the Isle of Portland’ [1828], TGSL, 1829, 2, pp. 395- 401;i‘Observations on the Secondary Formations between Nice and the Col di Tendi’ [1829], TGSL, 1829, 3, pp. 187-190;i‘On the Discovery of a New Species of Pterodactyle in the Lias at Lyme Regis’ [1829], TGSL, 1829, 3, pp. 217-222;i‘On the Discovery of Coprolites, or Fossil Faeces, in the Lias at Lyme Regis, and in other Formations’ [1829], TGSL, 1829, 3, pp. 223- 236;i‘On the Discovery of Fossil Bones of the Iguanodon in the Iron Sand of the Wealden Formation in the Isle of Wight, and in the Isle of Purbeck’ [1829], TGSL, 1835, 3, pp. 425-432. 177 W.F. Cannon, DSB, 1971, vol. 2, p. 567. 178 W. Buckland,i‘Notice on the Geological Structure of a part of the Island of Madagascar,’, TGSL, 1821, 5, pp. 476-481;i‘Supplementary Remarks on the supposed Power of the Waters of the Irawadi to convert Wood to Stone’, TGSL, 1829, 2, pp. 403-404;i‘On the Occurrence of Agates in Dolomitic Strata of the New Red Sandstone Formation in the Mendip Hills’, TGSL, 1835, 3, pp. 421-424. 179 W. Buckland, ‘On the Formation of the Valley of Kingsclere and other Valleys, by the Elevation of the Strata that inclose them; and on the Evidences of the original Continuity of the Basins of London and Hampshire’ [1825], TGSL, 1829, 2, pp. 119-130.

107 in the years to 1826 Sedgwick published eight varied, stratigraphic papers of relatively minor importance in Transactions of the Philosophical Society of Cambridge or in The Annals of Philosophy;180 in 1828 he finished a major investigation concerning the magnesian limestone of the New Red Sandstone that he had commenced in 1822; and finally, Sedgwick completed three joint- papers with Murchison in 1828-29. All of these papers can be classified as taxonomic-stratigraphic. Although Sedgwick was very much a diluvialist, only two of his papers dealt directly with this subject, namely, ‘On the Origin of Alluvial and Diluvial Deposits’ and ‘On Diluvial Formations’, both written in 1825.181 Sedgwick’s concept of the deluge at this stage was similar to Buckland’s, as instanced by some of his concluding remarks in the latter paper:

The facts brought to light by the combined labours of the modern school of geologists, seem, as far as I comprehend them, completely to demonstrate the reality of a great diluvian catastrophe during a comparatively recent period in the natural history of the earth.182

Like Buckland, Sedgwick was also forced to modify his conception of the deluge by the end of the decade, as indicated by Lyell’s comments to Mantell:

I followed [as a speaker at a GSL meeting in early June 1829] & then Sedgwick who decided on 4 or more deluges & said the simultaneousness was disproved for ever &c &c & declared that on the nature of such floods we should at present “doubt & not dogmatise!” a good meeting.183

Sedgwick has become as complete an anti-Bucklandite as to diluvium as I ever was & means to hold forth on it, a diversion very favourable to me.184

However, Lyell overstated the position. In his 1830 GSL Presidential Address Sedgwick indicated that Scrope’s views on the erosive powers of

180 Relevant details on these papers are contained in the bibliography of this thesis. 181 A. Sedgwick, ‘On the Origin of Alluvial and Diluvial Formations’, Annals of Philosophy, 1825, 9, pp. 241-257 and ‘On Diluvial Formations’, Annals of Philosophy, 1825, 10, pp. 18-37. 182 Ibid., p. 35. 183 CL to GAM, 7 June 1829, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 62. (Supp. Vol.-Letter 60). 184 CL to GAM, 22 October 1829, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 62. (Supp. Vol.-Letter 62).

108 rivers went too far and that they could not account for the gravels of the Thames Valley and elsewhere.185 Sedgwick spent the summers of 1822, 1823, and 1824 in north-east England and the Lakes District, mapping, inter alia, the New Red Sandstone using the calcareous beds in the upper and lower (magnesian) parts of the system to correlate other beds in this complex series. In doing so, Sedgwick made use of fossils for correlative purposes and was also able to correlate these beds with their German counterparts. His paper on this subject was read to the GSL over the interval November 1826 to March 1828.186 In several respects this paper can be compared with Fitton’s major study on the deposits situated between the chalk and Purbeck limestone in the south-east of England.187 Although neither man was the first to investigate these respective formations, the detailed and careful fieldwork of both regional studies resulted in the clearing up of various stratigraphic anomalies. In the latter half of the decade the relatively inexperienced Murchison virtually ‘selected’ Sedgwick to be his mentor and companion in helping him examine some perplexing stratigraphical problems in Scotland.188 The joint fieldwork of these two men resulted in three joint papers, two on aspects of Scottish stratigraphy, and one on the deposits of the eastern Alps.189 The former two papers were essentially extensions of earlier work by Macculloch; the latter paper was notable in that it accentuated the importance of Alpine stratigraphy and dynamics to English geologists.190 In reviewing Sedgwick’s geological work during the 1820s, Clark and Hughes made the point that although Sedgwick’s investigations may appear

185 Hallam, op. cit. (note 38), p. 45. 186 A. Sedgwick, ‘On the Geological Relations and internal Structure of the Magnesian Limestone, and the lower Portions of the New Red Sandstone Series in their Range through Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire, Yorkshire, and Durham, to the Southern Extremity of Northumberland’ [17 November 1826, 30 April 1827, 18 May 1827 and 7 March 1828], TGSL, 1829, 3, pp. 37-124. 187 W.H. Fitton, ‘Inquiries respecting the Geological Relations of the Beds between the Chalk and Purbeck Limestone in the Southeast of England’, Annals of Philosophy, 1824, 8, new series, pp. 365- 383 and 458-462. 188 See A. Geikie, Life of Sir Roderick Murchison, Murray, London, 1875, vol. 1, p. 137 and J.W. Clark and T.Mc. Hughes, The Life and Letters of the Reverend Adam Sedgwick, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1890, vol.1, p. 300. 189 A. Sedgwick and R.I.M. Murchison,i‘On the Geological Relations of the Secondary Strata in the Isle of Arran’ [1828], TGSL, 1829, 3, pp. 21-36;i ‘On the Structure and Relations of the Deposits contained between the Primary Rocks and the Oolitic Series in the North of Scotland’ [1828], TGSL, 1829, 3, pp. 125-160; andi‘A Sketch of the Structure of the Eastern Alps; with Sections through the Newer Formations on the Northern Flanks of the Chain, and through the Tertiary Deposits of Styria, &c, &c’,[1829 and 1830], TGSL, 1832, 3, pp. 301-420. 190 Clark and Hughes, op. cit. (note 188), vol. 1, p. 358.

109 to have been desultory, they were all concerned with the relatively complex stratigraphy and structure of the older rocks.191 More particularly, Sedgwick’s investigations of the New Red sandstone in the Lakes district gave him an appreciation of the nature of the older, non-conformable Carboniferous formations, which in turn, rested unconformably on older rocks. In summary, although his geological work in the 1820s did not result in the identification of a separate, major stratigaphic domain, it provided him with a sound foundation for his work in the coming decade.

(3) CONYBEARE

By the early 1820s Conybeare had established a notable reputation as one of the leading exponents of the emerging English school of geology, and as such, was a colleague of Buckland. At the commencement of the decade Conybeare was 33 years of age, married, a curate in Suffolk, endowed with a private income of £500 a year, and had published 3 papers192 in the Society’s Transactions.193 Conybeare’s first significant work described a part skeleton of a fossil reptile possibly found at Lyme Regis by Mary Anning in 1821. In a joint paper194 with De la Beche, who provided relevant stratigraphic data, Conybeare used Cuvier’s methodology to construct the Plesiosaurus as an intermediate reptile between the Ichthyosaurus and modern day crocodile. His reconstruction was confirmed following the discovery of an almost perfect skeleton of a Plesiosaurus several years later.195 Rudwick196 has commented that Conybeare’s most important and influential work was his enlargement and improvement of W. Phillip’s 1818 summary of English stratigraphy, A Selection of Facts from the Best Authorities Arranged as to Form an Outline of the Geology of England and

191 Ibid., vol.1, p. 530. 192 Details of these three papers are contained in the bibliography of this thesis. 193 Woodward, op. cit. (note 29), pp. 40-41 and 273. 194 W.D. Conybeare and H.T. De la Beche, ‘Notice of a Discovery of a New Fossil Animal, Forming a Link between the Ichthyosaurus and the Crocodile; together with general remarks on the osteology of the Ichthyosaurus’, TGSL, 1821, 5, pp. 558-594. 195 W.D. Conybeare, ‘On the Discovery of an almost perfect Skeleton of a Plesiosaurus’, TGSL, 1824, 1, pp. 381- 389. See CL to GAM, 17 February 1824, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 60. (Supp. Vol.-Letter 14). 196 M.J.S. Rudwick, ‘A Critique of Uniformitarian Geology: A letter from W.D. Conybeare to Charles Lyell, 1841’, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 1967, 111, p. 274.

110 Wales. The new joint work, Outlines of the Geology of England and Wales,197 published in 1822, provided a synopsis of stratigraphic knowledge from the present to the Carboniferous period. As noted in an earlier section, the book exhibited catastrophist principles. Following the death of Phillips in 1828, a second volume was planned with Sedgwick198 as a co-author, but this work did not eventuate. Conybeare’s other stratigraphic paper during the 1820s, apart from his joint paper199 with Buckland on the south-western coal district of England, was also broad in scope and attempted a synthesis of Continental stratigraphy.200 In his 1983 study of Buckland and the English school of geology, Rupke attributed considerable importance to Conybeare’s role in defending diluvial theory against the ‘fluvialists’;201 in fact, he stated: “If Buckland was the titular head of the diluvialist party, Conybeare was the party theoretician”.202 An example of Conybeare’s role in this regard is his 1829 paper, ‘On the Hydrographical Basin of the Thames’,203 in which he argued that the valleys of the Thames could not have been formed by fluvial forces. Nevertheless, by the end of the decade the earlier 1820 concept of a dramatic and universal Mosaic deluge had been greatly modified. In its stead was a broader and more flexible synthesis of geological history, progressionism, that acknowledged occasional cataclysmic episodes in the stratigraphic record, evidence of increasing complexity combined with perfect adaptation in the fossil record, and a directional climate change. Like diluvialism, progressionism incorporated aspects of ‘causal’, ‘taxonomic’, and ‘scriptural’ domains of geology. Both Rudwick204 and Rupke205 have made the point that Conybeare was one of the most able exponents of this broader concept. To a considerable extent this can be regarded as a consequence of

197 Conybeare and Phillips, op. cit. (note 25). 198 CL to GAM, 21 April 1828, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 61. (Supp. Vol.-Letter 47). 199 Buckland and Conybeare, op. cit. (note 157). 200 W.D. Conybeare, ‘Memoir Illustrative of a General Geological Map of the principal Mountain Chains of Europe’, Annals of Philosophy, 1823, 5, pp. 1-16, 135-149, 210-218, 278-289, 356-359; and 6, pp. 214-219. 201 Conybeare termed the opponents of diluvial theory, ‘fluvialists’. See CL to GAM, 7 June 1829. (Supp.Vol.-Letter 60). 202 Rupke, op. cit. (note 35), p. 86. 203 W.D. Conybeare, ‘On the Hydrographical Basin of the Thames, With a View More Especially to Investigate the Causes Which have Operated in the Formation of the Valleys of that River, and its Tributary Streams’ [1829], PGSL, 1834, 1, pp. 145-149. 204 M.J.S. Rudwick, DSB, 1971, 3, pp. 395-396. 205 Rupke, op. cit. (note 35), pp. 180-183.

111 the man, his position in life, and the nature of geology at that time. The combination of Conybeare’s intellectual ability, Oxford education, and a family background entrenched in the Anglican establishment,206 gave him impeccable credentials to expound, if not spear-head, this broader mix of concepts. It also gave him an opportunity to demonstrate that there was no incompatibility between geological developments and the teachings of the established church. By the late 1820s Conybeare can be regarded as a leading exponent of this ‘modal’ domain, jointly established by the Oxbridge ‘clergyman-specialists’.

(4) FITTON

In 1820, Fitton was 40 years of age and had been a member of the GSL since 1816. During the 1820s he was a member of council from 1822 to 1830, and President from 1827 to 1829. Fitton’s geological publications throughout the 1820s, 1830s, and 1840s fall into two basic categories. The first comprises various Edinburgh Review articles on geological developments and publications that generally fall outside the scope of this review.207 Fitton’s other category of geological work related to his regional taxonomic domain, the strata between the chalk and the Oxford oolite in the south-east of England. Unlike Conybeare and Buckland, Fitton’s area of geological investigations was relatively narrow in geographic scope. Moreover, Fitton was not a pioneer in his chosen domain; among others, he followed the earlier work of Farey, Webster, Mantell and Lyell.208 For these reasons Fitton’s work on these formations is considered to constitute a minor and not a major domain. The nature of Fitton’s work was well summed up by Hopkins, the president of the GSL in 1852, who made the following remarks when presenting Fitton with the Wollaston medal :

206 At Oxford Conybeare gained first-class honours in classics and second-class honours in mathematics. His father was rector of St. Botolph’s, Bishopsgate, London, the son of a bishop. In 1836 Conybeare was able to take up his family living as vicar of Axminster. DNB. 207 Some of these articles are referred to elsewhere in this chapter. Details are contained in the Bibliography of this thesis. 208 During 1822 and 123 Lyell did considerable work in unravelling the correct order of the strata below to the chalk in Sussex and made the results of his work available to Fitton. See CL to GAM, 4 July 1822, 12 February 1823, and 24 November 1824, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 60. (Supp. Vol.-Letters 10, 11 and 17).

112 The Council, however, could not fail to recognise especially, in the award of this Medal, the merit of those papers in which you so clearly explained the nature of the different beds between the Chalk and the Oolites, and their relations to each other – relations which had been previously so imperfectly understood. The Upper Green Sand was sometimes confounded with the Lower Green Sand, the Gault with the Weald Clay, and the Ferruginous Sands of the Lower Green Sand with those of the Hastings Sands; and the distinctions between the Lower Green Sand, the Wealden Clay, and the Hastings Sands were imperfectly comprehended. 209

The papers referred to by Hopkins were Fitton’s ‘Enquiries respecting the Geological Relations of the Beds between the Chalk and the Purbeck Limestone in the South-east of England’, published in 1824,210 and ‘On Some of the Strata Between the Chalk and the Oxford Oolite, in the South-east of England’, read to the GSL in June, 1827, but not published until 1836.211 Both papers covered the same subject, but the latter was longer and more comprehensive. During the 1820s Fitton also produced five ancillary papers describing particular aspects of these beds, including some comparisons with those on the Continent.212

(5) DE LA BECHE

Like Lyell and Murchison, De la Beche can be regarded as representative of a younger group of ‘gentleman-specialists’ who completed their geological ‘apprenticeship’ in the 1820s. He was 24 years of age in 1820. De la Beche’s main training ground comprised the coastal stratigraphy of south-western England, though he also prepared a pioneering paper on the geology of Jamaica,213 an annotated translation of selected memoirs on Continental geology,214 and a description of the geology around Nice.215

209 GSL, ‘Proceedings at the Annual General Meeting, 20th February, 1852’, QJGSL, 1852, 8, p. 19. 210 W.H. Fitton, ‘Enquiries respecting the Geological Relations of the Beds between the Chalk and the Purbeck Limestone in the South-east of England’, Annals of Philosophy, 1824, 8, pp. 365-383 and 458-462. 211 W.H. Fitton, ‘Observations on some of the Strata between the Chalk and the Oxford Oolite, in the south-east of England’, TGSL,1836, 4, pp. 103-378. 212 Details of these five papers are contained in the Bibliography of this thesis. 213 H.T. De la Beche, ‘Remarks on the Geology of Jamaica’ [1825-26], TGSL, 1829, 2, pp. 143-194. 214 H.T. De la Beche, A Selection of the Geological Memoirs Contained in the Annales des Mines, Phillips, London, 1824.

113 Four of the six papers that De la Beche completed on the coastal stratigraphy of southern and south-western England concerned the stretch of Devon-Dorset coast from Bridport to Torquay216 (chalk beds down to the New Red Sandstone). Another paper on the geology of the coast of France highlighted the correspondence between the French beds and the formations in the south of England,217 while the sixth paper dealt with the geology of South Pembrokeshire218 (coal measures down to the greywacke). Consequently, De la Beche gained an appreciation of the formations above the Carboniferous, and an awareness of the potential domains below that system. All of De la Beche’s geological investigations during the 1820s can be summarised as taxonomic, and oriented towards stratigraphy, rather than fossil remains. However, some elements of his work were not completely representative of the English school of geology at that time. There are indications of Greenough’s sceptical approach to geological investigations such as considerable emphasis on detailed descriptive facts, local classification, complexity and minimum causal input. For example, in his paper on the Lias in the vicinity of Lyme Regis (read November 1823), De la Beche described 91 separate beds in one of three portions of the Lias in a particular section near Seven Point Rock.219 Only 18 of the 91 separated beds exceeded one foot (30 cm.) in thickness. Overtones of Greenough’s scepticism, and distrust of regional correlations, are also evident in De la Beche’s concluding remarks in his paper on the chalk and sands near Lyme Regis:

If therefore, in rocks formed in the same geological epoch, variations such as here are noticed, occur within the space of a

215 H.T. De la Beche, ‘On the Geology of the Environs of Nice, and the Coast thence to Vintimiglia’, [1828], TGSL,1835, 3, pp. 171-186. 216 H.T. De la Beche,i‘Remarks on the Geology of the South Coast of England, from Bridport Harbour, Dorset to Babbacombe Bay, Devon’ [1819], TGSL, 1822, 1, pp. 40-47;i‘On the Lias of the Coast, in the Vicinity of Lyme Regis, Dorset’ [1823], TGSL, 1826, 2, pp. 21-30;i‘On the Chalk and Sands beneath it (usually termed Green-sand) in the Vicinity of Lyme Regis, Dorset, and Beer, Devon’ [1825], TGSL, 1826, 2, pp. 109-118;i‘On the Geology of Tor and Babbacombe Bays, Devon’ [1827], TGSL, 1829, 3, pp. 161-170. 217 H.T. De la Beche, ‘On the Geology of the Coast of France, and of the inland Country adjoining; from Fecamp, Department de la Seine Inferieure, to St. Vaast, Department de la Manche’ [1821], TGSL, 1822, 1, pp. 73-89. 218 H.T. De la Beche, ‘On the Geology of Southern Pembrokeshire’,[1823],TGSL, 1826, 2, pp.1-20. 219 De la Beche, ‘On the Lias of the Coast, in the Vicinity of Lyme Regis, Dorset’, 1826, on p. 24.

114 few miles, how many points of difference may we not expect to find in geological equivalents, belonging to countries many thousand miles apart.220

By the end of the decade De la Beche had more than completed his ‘geological apprenticeship’ and was positioned to fashion a domain, as will be discussed.

(6) MURCHISON

Murchison did not begin his geological ‘apprenticeship’ until the mid- 1820s,221 but in the subsequent years to the end of the decade he sought and received a comprehensive grounding in stratigraphical geology. His first GSL paper, read in December 1825, consisted of a geological sketch of the deposits in north-western Sussex,222 which his biographer, Geikie, described in the following manner:

This little essay bore manifest evidence of being the result of careful observation of the order of succession of the rocks in the field, followed by as ample examination of their fossils as he could secure from those best qualified to give an opinion upon them. In these respects it was typical of all his later work.223

Geikie’s last sentence is pertinent. Murchison’s geological style of stratigraphic investigations, backed up by expert palaeontological advice, changed little throughout his career. During the 1820s Murchison availed himself fully of such geological mentors as Buckland, William Smith, J. Phillips, Lyell and most importantly, Sedgwick. In his next paper on the Brora coal-deposit in Scotland,224 an investigation suggested by Buckland, Murchison used fossils to correlate this

220 De la Beche, ‘ On the Chalk and the Sand beneath it…’, 1826, p. 118. 221 In 1824 Murchison attended lectures at the Royal Institution; he joined the GSL in 1825 and thereafter was in a position to devote himself entirely to geology and allied interests. DSB. 222 R.I. Murchison, ‘Geological Sketch of the North-western Extremity of Sussex, and the adjoining Parts of Hants and Surrey’ [December 1825], TGSL, 1826, 2, pp. 97-108. 223 A. Geikie, Life of Sir Roderick I. Murchison, Murray, London, 1875, vol. 1, p. 128. 224 R.I. Murchison, ‘On the Coal-field of Brora in Sutherlandshire, and some other Stratified Deposits in the North Scotland’ [January and February 1827], TGSL, 1827, 2, pp. 293-326. In November 1827 Murchison read an associated paper , ‘Supplementary Remarks on the Strata of the Oolitic Series, and the Rocks associated with them, in the Counties of Sutherland and Ross, and in

115 coal deposit with the Oolitic strata of Yorkshire, and disprove that it belonged to the older Carboniferous System. Before doing so, however, Murchison was fully briefed on the oolitic fossils of Yorkshire by John Phillips, who also arranged a meeting with his uncle, William Smith. Smith subsequently acquainted Murchison with the Yorkshire strata and instructed him in the principles of correlation using fossil data.225 In this instance Murchison acknowledged his gratitude to Smith, but not to Phillips. 226 As noted earlier in the section dealing with Sedgwick’s work in the 1820s, Murchison ‘selected’ the Woodwardian professor as his ‘senior partner’ to examine certain complex Scottish secondary formations. These investigations were followed by a joint expedition with Lyell227 to central France and Italy in 1828, when he came under the influence of the latter’s ‘actualistic’ concepts. However, Murchison’s subsequent observations and investigations in the Alps, both with and without Sedgwick, restored his catastrophist viewpoint.228 Although none of the geological work completed by Murchison during the 1820s can be regarded as innovative or of major importance, his investigations covered a broad stratigraphic range in terms of both geological age and geographic extent. Like De la Beche and Sedgwick, he was in a sound position at the end of the decade to exploit any identified stratigraphic domain.

(7) WOLLASTON

Wollaston was the only member of council identified in the penultimate screening list for the period 1807 to 1820, and one of two members so recognised in the decade 1820 to 1830, the other being Buckland. However, within the context of this thesis Wollaston can be regarded as an anomalous figure, since he was a distinguished physiologist, metallurgist and chemist, not a geologist. Wollaston’s wide-ranging scientific investigations were in the fields of physiology and physiological chemistry, instrumentation,

the Hebrides’ [1827], TGSL, 1828, 2, pp. 353-368. 225 Geikie, op. cit. (note 223), vol. 1, pp. 130-132. 226 J. Morrell, ‘The Legacy of William Smith: the case of John Phillips in the 1820s’, Archives of Natural History, 1989, 16, pp. 319-335, on p. 330. 227 See CL to GAM, 15 June and 22 August 1828, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 61. (Supp.Vol.- Letters 49 and 50). 228 M.J.S. Rudwick, DSB, 1971, 9, on p. 583.

116 crystallography, and the chemistry and metallurgy of the platinoid metals. All his work was published in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London,229 and not with the GSL. None of his studies concerned stratigraphy, structural geology, palaeontology, or petrology, and unlike Whewell, who can also be regarded as a ‘non-geological’ figure, Wollaston did not delve into the philosophy or methodologies of geology. Wollaston joined the GSL in 1812 and served as a member of council from 1813 to 1824. His inclusion in the list of an English geological elite can be regarded as a reflection of an earlier, different era in the history of the GSL.

(8) WHEWELL

Whewell did not serve as a member of the GSL council during the 1820s. He used these years to establish himself at Cambridge by publishing a treatise on dynamics230 besides an important paper on crystallography,231 becoming ordained in the Church of England in 1826, and being appointed Professor of Mineralogy in 1828, when he also published a revision of Mohs mineralogical system.232 Additionally, Whewell was an influential member of the ‘English school’ of geology, together with fellow clerics Buckland, Conybeare and Sedgwick. Rupke has referred to Whewell and Conybeare as the ‘party theoreticians’ of that particular school,233 but in Whewell’s case the context was in the early 1830s. Nevertheless, his reputation was sufficient for Lyell to comment in a letter to his sister in 1830 “He [Whewell] is head tutor at Trinity, and has more influence than any individual unless it be Sedgwick”.234 In many respects Whewell’s range of intellectual, religious and scientific interests were still being developed in the 1820s. He was not to take an active role in geological matters until the early years of the next decade. (9) GREENOUGH

229 During the period 1797-1829 Wollaston had 38 papers published in PTRSL. 230 W. Whewell, A Treatise on Dynamics, Cambridge, 1823. 231 W. Whewell, ‘A General Method of Calculating the Angles Made by Any Planes of Crystals, and the Laws According to which they are Formed’, PTRSL, 1825, 115, pp. 87-130. 232 W. Whewell, An Essay on Mineralogical Classification and Nomenclature; With Tables of the Orders and Species of Minerals, Cambridge, 1828. 233 Rupke, op. cit. (note 35), p. 181. 234 CL to his sister Marianne, 14 November 1830. Quoted in K. Lyell, op. cit. (note 5), 1881, vol.1, p. 312.

117 In 1820 Greenough was 42 years of age and completing his second term as president of the GSL. He was also a founding member of the Society and its first president, and therefore a person of consequence in the English geological world. Under his leadership the GSL had prepared a geological map of England and Wales, published in 1820, but largely based on W. Smith’s work,. However, Greenough’s memoir accompanying the map235 was virtually his last geological publication. This explains his early exclusion from the various screening lists in the previous chapter. He is included in this analysis as one of two exceptional cases. As previously noted, Greenough’s principal publication, A Critical Examination of the First Principles of Geology, in a Series of Essays,236 was characterised by a sceptical approach to almost all aspects of geology. Given Greenough’s institutional status and geological authority at the time, however, the publication of this book effectively established him as the leading exponent of this modal approach to geology. Nevertheless, the problem with such a negative and idiosyncratic domain is one of conservation, let alone its development. Although Greenough was recognised as a leading exponent of the sceptical approach to geology, his publication was generally not well received. Bakewell’s criticism was severe;237 Fleming’s even more so:

Before taking our leave of Mr. Greenough, we feel disposed to state candidly, that his performance is one by no means calculated to advance his own reputation, or promote the interests of geology….There has resulted from all this a kind of geological scepticism, which we regard in this instance as the index of a mind unaccustomed to philosophical induction,238

The generally poor reception given to Greenough’s book by his geological peers may have fostered a characteristic that Rudwick connected with the sceptical style of geology, social isolation.239 Rupke has noted that

235 G.B. Greenough, Memoir of a Geological Map of England, London, 1820, accompanying A Geological Map of England and Wales, London, 1819. (map not published until 1820). 236 Published by Longman and Co., London, in 1819. 237 [Bakewell], op. cit. (note 54), pp. 376-393. 238 J. Fleming, ‘Review of Greenough’s A Critical Examination of the First Principles of Geology’, Edinburgh Monthly Review, 1820, 4, p. 571. 239 Rudwick, op. cit. (note 15), p. 236.

118 Conybeare’s 1823 memoir on the geology of Europe240 contributed to the alienation of Greenough from Buckland and Conybeare.241 The biographies of Sedgwick, Murchison and Lyell, which are based on their respective letters and journals, contain sparing references to Greenough. After 1826, in fact, Lyell’s references to Greenough in his letters to Mantell become increasingly critical.242 Nevertheless, Greenough retained his positions of authority, being elected GSL president for a unique third term in the 1830s, and remaining a member of council until his death in 1855.

(10) JOHN PHILLIPS

John Phillips is the other exception included in the identified geological elite, his case being the converse of Greenough’s. Because of his provincial position and strained financial circumstances, Phillips did not join the GSL until 1828, and was not elected a member of council until 1853. However, an offsetting experiential advantage was having William Smith as his maternal uncle and geological mentor. Another advantage was his base as Keeper of the Yorkshire Philosophical Society’s museum at York during the 1820s,243 a position that gave him the opportunity to identify and establish his stratigraphic domain of the 1830s, the geology of Yorkshire. In contrast to the strata in south and south-eastern England, the stratigraphy of Yorkshire offered less-crowded opportunities. In December 1827, Phillips read his first paper to the GSL on some dislocated secondary rocks of Yorkshire.244 On the second last page of this paper, Philips identified a key aspect of his future domain:

I forbear to enlarge on this subject [Yorkshire limestone deposits] because I am not without hopes of preparing a general table of

240 Conybeare, op. cit. (note 200). 241 Rupke, op. cit. (note 35), p. 127. 242 See CL to GAM, 22 June 1826, 17 February 1826, and 16 May 1829, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folders 61 and 62. (Supp. Vol.-Letters 31, 45 and 56). 243 In 1824 Phillips was engaged to arrange the fossil collection at the Yorkshire Philosophical Society’s museum at York. He was appointed Keeper in 1826. DSB. 244 J. Phillips, ‘On a Group of Slate Rocks ranging E.S.E. between the Rivers Lune and Wharfe, from near Kirby Lonsdale to near Maltham; and on the attendant Phænomena’ [1827-28], TGSL, 1829, 3, pp. 1-19.

119 synonyms for the limestone beds over a great part of the north of England.245

Phillips’s first book, Illustrations of the Geology of Yorkshire,246 was published in 1829. It can be described as the first part of a major regional text, and as Morrell has noted, “was an exercise in Smithian geology in its broad results and approach. He showed what Smith had discovered but not published, i.e. the presence in Yorkshire of strata already known in the south-west of England”.247 Knell’s analysis of the book was more succinct: “the stratigraphic framework of the South had been superimposed on Yorkshire”.248

3.2.5 REVIEW OF THE GEOLOGICAL WORK COMPLETED BY THE IDENTIFIED GEOLOGISTS IN THE 1820s

The various reviews indicate that only two members of council established individual, major geological domains in the 1820s, Buckland and Greenough, though doubts can be expressed as to whether the latter’s domain was in the major category. Additionally, Conybeare was a key figure in fashioning a joint-domain towards the end of the decade, with Sedgwick also playing a consequential role in the development of the English school. Buckland was the only member identified in the final screening list for the 1820s. Conybeare and Sedgwick were two of seven members on the penultimate list for the 1830s, while Greenough was one of two exceptional cases. A common characteristic of these three domains is that all were ‘modal’. Another common factor is their relative impermanence. Buckland’s diluvialism had an effective ‘shelf-life’ of less than ten years before it was incorporated into the broader concept of progressionism, which in turn, became increasingly diffused by the mid-century. Greenough’s unusual domain of geological scepticism did not develop after his main work, A

245 Ibid., p. 18. 246 J. Phillips, Illustrations of the Geology of Yorkshire; or, a Description of the Strata and Organic Remains of the Yorkshire Coast: accompanied by a Geological Map, Sections, and Plates of the Fossil Plants and Animals, York, 1829. 247 J. Morrell, ‘The legacy of William Smith: the case of John Phillips in the 1820s’, Archives of Natural History, 1989, 16, p. 329. 248 S. Knell, ‘Immortal Remains: Fossil Collections from the Heroic Age of Geology (1820-1850)’, unpublished Ph.D thesis, University of Keele, 1997, p. 70.

120 Critical Examination of the First Principles of Geology, was published in 1819. Another common factor of the three identified domains is that they were essentially national, rather than international, in their degree of acceptance. This probably reflects the national rather than international extent of the respective power bases of Buckland, Conybeare and Greenough. The only member identified in the penultimate list for the decade, the non-geologist Wollaston, was an anomalous figure, representative of an earlier period in the history of the GSL. Only two minor domains were identified in the 1820s, Fitton’s and Mantell’s. Both domains had limitations. Fitton was not a pioneer in his selected domain, the strata between the chalk and the Oxford oolite, in either England or on the continent. In essence, he cleared up major anomalies rather than forged new ground. Mantell’s minor domain, the fossils of Sussex, was established towards the end of the decade, but was too broad in palaeontological scope to develop, other than in the short term. Moreover, a major palaeontological domain cannot be confined to a single county, except in special circumstances. Lyell was aware of these limitations, and in 1829 suggested a more suitable major domain for Mantell to establish – British fossil reptiles and fish. During the 1820s Lyell’s geological interest became increasingly focused on ‘causal’ geology, and more particularly, on the explanatory methodology of present-day observable causes. Although he had identified this broad, potential domain by the mid-1820s, Lyell’s concept of absolute actualism does not appear to have crystallised until 1829. Phillips, one of the two exceptions in the selected elite, also identified his future domain by the end of the decade, the regional geology of Yorkshire. He had no need to be secretive about this choice and announced it in one of his papers.249 Sedgwick, along with the two younger members, Murchison and De la Beche, had not identified a separate potential domain by the end of the decade. However, each of these men had gained an excellent grounding in English stratigraphy during the 1820s. More particularly, their geological work had given them an appreciation of the formations above the

249 Phillips, op. cit. (note 244), p. 18.

121 Carboniferous, and an awareness of the potential domain or domains situated below. In summary, the 1820s was not a decade for establishing major new domains. It was a decade for solving stratigraphic anomalies above the Carboniferous; for discovering, but not classifying, large fossil reptiles; for substantiating the use of particular fossils in stratigraphic correlation; for developing and broadening the scope of the English school’s approach to geology; and for training new members in a position to devote most, if not all their time, to geology. In regard to the achievement of geological status it was a decade for positioning – attaining sufficient geological experience and knowledge to identify a major new domain and then being in a position to fashion it in the coming decade.

3.3 1830 to 1840

3.3.1 THE GEOLOGICAL WORK OF MANTELL IN THE 1830s

Follow-up remarks by Lyell in October, 1829, suggest that Mantell intended to implement Lyell’s ‘career blue-print’ and claim the vacant ‘taxonomic’ domain of British fossil fish and reptiles:

I am glad to hear that you [Mantell] are getting on in the anatomical branch for it is there that you may top all on this side of the channel & give us an invaluable help. The field is yours in spite of disadvantages of localization which you have triumphed over.250

Besides Lyell, Bakewell was also aware of the opportunity open to Mantell, and advised him accordingly three years after Lyell had done so:

I have been thinking that you might render essential service to science, increase your reputation & put a few hundred pounds in your pocket by publishing a book in one Vol – Oc[tavo]. ‘On British Vertebrated fossil animals with an appendix on Foreign Do.’ This work would be in the hands of every Geologist & would supersede the four large Vols of Cuvier in this country & be far

250 CL to GAM, 22 October 1829, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 62. (Supp. Vol.-Letter 62).

122 more useful. I know of no one who could compete with you in this line in England.251

Bakewell repeated his advice in a succeeding letter to Mantell, dated 2 November 1832.252 However, it is not sufficient to have identified a potential domain and formulated an appropriate work programme. It is equally necessary to be suitably positioned to implement it. In this regard Mantell’s provincial situation at Lewes might have sufficed as a reasonably practical base to carry out the investigations envisaged by Lyell and Bakewell, if he had been prepared to reduce his medical work-load and accept a lower income. This possibility can only be speculative, since Mantell developed an alternative strategy. In brief, in December 1833, Mantell moved his family to fashionable Brighton where he proposed to establish a more ‘up-market’ medical practice, re-establish his museum, and continue his geological investigations. The reasons that induced Mantell to make this decision are explored in the next chapter, together with an analysis of the professional and financial calamities he encountered there. Accordingly, Mantell’s geological work during the 1830s is best examined on a pre and post- Brighton basis.

(1) 1830 - 1833 ( Pre-Brighton )

The highlight of Mantell’s geological work in the four years to December 1833 was the publication of The Geology of the South-east of England.253 In his Preface Mantell gave the following reasons for this publication:

The discovery of an unknown fossil reptile [Hylaeosaurus] in the strata of Tilgate Forest, induced me to lay before the Geological Society of London [in 1832], a Memoir on the Organic Remains of the Wealden which had been collected since my publication on the geology of the district. By permission of the President and the Council that memoir was withdrawn; and it was suggested to me, that as my former works were out of print, a volume which should combine the most interesting portions of the “Illustrations of the

251 R. Bakewell to GAM, 17 October 1832, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 5. 252 R. Bakewell to GAM, 2 November 1832, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 5. 253 G.A. Mantell, The Geology of the South-east of England, Longman, Orme, Brown, Green & Longman, London, 1833.

123 Geology of Sussex” with an account of the recent discoveries, might be acceptable both to the natural philosopher and the general reader.254

From a scientific viewpoint, the most significant segment of the book is Chapter X, which describes the fossil remains of the Hylaeosaurus, the second of three large, land-based fossil reptiles discovered by Mantell. The book also demonstrates Mantell’s skill in writing a volume acceptable to both the intelligent layman and serious student of geology. Another feature is the praise given to Lyell’s Principles of Geology in Mantell’s Introduction: “the most able, comprehensive and philosophical view of the subject that has hitherto appeared”.255 Mantell was now very much one of Lyell’s ‘apostles’, as indicated in a 1831 letter from Lyell that described the formation of a new volcanic island near Sicily:

I congratulate you, one of the first of my twelve apostles, at Nature having in so come-atable a part of the Mediterranean thus testified her approbation of the advocates of modern Causes. Was the cross which Constantine saw in the heavens a more clear indication of the approaching conversion of a wavering world? 256

Mantell had earlier demonstrated his ability to write for the popular market with his 1831 essay, ‘The Geological Age of Reptiles’,257 in which he described the different environments and characteristics of the Ichthyosaurus, Plesiosaurus, Megalosaurus and Iguanodon. During this period Mantell also published three other articles or notices in The Edinburgh New Philosophical Review258 of a relatively minor nature, and an anatomical appendage to Murchison’s paper on a fossil fox, discovered in Switzerland.259

254 Ibid., Preface. 255 Ibid., Introduction. 256 CL to GAM 30, August 1831, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 63. (Supp. Vol.-Letter 86). 257 G.A. Mantell, ‘The Geological Age of Reptiles’, ENPJ, 1831, 11, pp. 181-185. In a letter to Mantell, dated 1 July 1831, Lyell commented on this article: “You do much for popularising the science”. (Supp. Vol.-Letter 84). 258 G.A. Mantell,i‘On supposed Vegetable Remains in Chalk’, ENPJ, 1830, 8, pp. 313-314:i ‘On the Ripple Marks made by the Waves, observable in the Sandstone Strata of Sussex’, ENPJ, 1831, 11, pp. 240-241. For additional background on this paper see CL to GAM, 13 August 1831, (Supp. Vol.-Letter 85);i‘Discovery of the Bones of the Iguanodon in a Quarry of Kentish Rag (a limestone belonging to the lower greensand formation) near Maidstone, Kent’, ENPJ, 1834, 17, pp. 200-202. 259 G.A. Mantell, ‘Anatomical Description of the Fox’, TGSL, 1832, 3, pp. 291-292.

124 As a general summary, Mantell’s geological work during his last four years at Lewes generally lacked innovation and depth, apart from his Geology of the South-east of England.

(2) 1834 - 1840 (Brighton)

Mantell’s move to Brighton in December 1833 did not result in the completion of any significant geological investigations, though the first of two short papers read in June 1835, had important consequences at the time. This particular paper260 described fragments of a presumed metatarsal bone of a bird belonging to the order of waders found in the freshwater deposits of the Weald. Mantell’s opinion had been endorsed by Owen, and consequently the existence of birds below the chalk was considered an established fact. Predictably, Lyell took a ‘deep interest’ in the subject, because of his non - progessionist beliefs. It is ironic that in his paper Mantell described his future arch-rival, Owen, as “a gentleman whose profound knowledge of comparative anatomy, is only equalled by the liberality with which he imparts his valuable information to others”.261 In the next decade Owen reversed his earlier judgment and pronounced that the bones belonged to Pterodactyles.262 The other paper read by Mantell in June, 1835, remarked on the coffin bone of a horse found in the Pliocene cliffs of Brighton.263 In addition to the above two short papers, Mantell wrote two, well- received ‘popular’ books on geology. The first such publication, Thoughts on a Pebble,264 was inscribed to Mantell’s youngest son, Reginald Neville, and can be described as a charming, 23-page introduction to geology. By 1849, eight editions of this booklet had been printed. Mantell’s second book for the ‘popular’ market, The Wonders of Geology,265 first published in 1838, was

260 G.A. Mantell, ‘On the Bones of Birds discovered in the Strata of Tilgate Forest, in Sussex’ [1835], TGSL, 1840, 5, pp. 175-177. 261 Ibid., pp. 175-177. 262 R. Owen, ‘On the supposed Fossil Bones of Birds from the Wealden’ [17 December 1845], QJGSL, 1846, 2, p. 97. 263 G.A. Mantell, ‘Remarks on the Coffin-bone (distal phalangel) of a Horse from the Shingle Bed of the Newer Pliocene Strata of the Cliffs of Brighton’ [1835], PGSL, 1834-37, 2, p. 203. For additional background on this paper see GAM to CL, 17 February 1835, (Supp. Vol.-Letter 120). 264 G.A. Mantell, Thoughts on a Pebble or a First Lesson in Geology, Relfe and Fletcher, London, 1836. 265 G.A. Mantell, The Wonders of Geology, 2 vols, Relfe and Fletcher, London, 1838.

125 also well received, the eighth edition being printed 12 years after Mantell’s death. The basis of this publication was the series of geological lectures that Mantell gave at Brighton. Although Mantell’s popular volumes were well written and provided an excellent introduction to geology for the ‘intelligent lay reader’, they were not works of geological achievement. By the end of the decade Mantell had retrogressed in terms of establishing a suitable geological domain. More specifically, he failed to capitalise on his discoveries of the Iguanodon and Hyaeolosaurus and make British fossil reptiles his area of acknowledged authority.

3.3.2 THE GEOLOGICAL WORK OF LYELL IN THE 1830s

Because the publication of four, separate editions of Principles of Geology266 was the undoubted highlight of Lyell’s geological output during the 1830s, particular emphasis is given in this section to the nature of his causal principles and to his key motivation for adopting them. These principles are considerably more complex than Lyell indicated in his straight-forward title, Principles of Geology, being An Attempt to explain the Former Changes of the Earth’s Surface, by reference to causes now in operation. Since the literature pertaining to Lyell is extensive, relatively little attention is given here to other aspects of this work, such as its historical account of geology, overall structure, and polemical nature.267 Lyell’s progress and excitement in writing the first volume of Principles of Geology are revealed in his letters to Mantell from 23 May, 1829, until 22 June, 1830,268 the day he sent the last page to the printer and set out for the Pyrennees. In addition to the four editions of Principles of Geology, during the 1830s Lyell also published the first edition of Elements of Geology,269 and 12

266 The three volumes of the first edition of Lyell’s Principles of Geology were published by J. Murray, London, in 1830, 1832 and 1833 respectively. Vols 1 and 2 of this edition were re-printed in 1832 and 1833, the next edition, printed in 1834 (4 vols), was termed the third. The fourth and fifth editions, also comprising 4 volumes, were published in 1835 and 1837 respectively. 267 Excellent analyses of most of these aspects are contained in:iM.J.S. Rudwick, ‘The Strategy of Lyell’s Principles of Geology’, Isis, 1970, 61, pp. 5-33, andiR. Porter, ‘Charles Lyell and the Principles of the History of Geology’, The British Journal for the History of Science, 1976, 32, pp. 91-103. 268 CL to GAM, Supplementary Volume, Letters 59, 63, 64, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72 73. 269 C. Lyell, Elements of Geology, Murray, London, 1838.

126 short papers270 that generally related to some causal aspect of geology. These publications are briefly discussed after the analysis of Lyell’s Principles.

(1) THE NATURE OF LYELL’S ‘CAUSAL’ DOMAIN

Since 1970, Lyell’s Principles of Geology has been subject to detailed analysis by Rudwick, Bartholomew, Cannon, Wilson, Porter, Ruse, Laudan, and Gould since 1970, and there is general consensus on the nature of the ‘principles of reasoning’ Lyell adopted in this work. They are summarised below, based on the work of Rudwick, Cannon, and Gould.271

· Uniformity of Law Natural and physical laws are continuous in space and time. This can be regarded as a non-contentious, methodological principle. Miracles do not occur. · Uniformity of Process Only those causes that can be observed in action today should be invoked to explain geological events and monuments. Again, this is a methodological principle. It is also a prerequisite condition of the ‘verae causae’ concept. · Uniformity of Rate of Change Lyell stipulated that the rate of change in both the inorganic and organic worlds has been slow, gradual, and on a world-basis, constant. This is not a methodological principle, but a substantive claim. Using Rudwick’s term, Lyell ‘conflated’ this assertion with the two, generally accepted methodological principles. Cannon describes Lyell’s combination of these three principles as ‘absolute actualism’.272 · Uniformity of State Change is continuous and gradual, but non- directional, resulting in a perpetual flux around a mean for both the inorganic and organic worlds. Biological structural relationships have no correlation with time; species are distinct entities whose creation and

270 Lyell is credited with 14 papers published during the 1830s in Royal Society Catalogue of Scientific Papers, vol. 1, 1867, but there is duplication in two of the subjects. 271 M.J.S. Rudwick, The Meaning of Fossils: Episodes in the History of Palaeontology, MacDonald, London, 1972, pp. 185-190;iW. Faye Cannon, ‘Charles Lyell, Radical Actualism, and Theory’, The British Journal for the History of Science, 1976, 32, p. 115;iS.J. Gould, Time’s Arrow, Time’s Cycle: Myth and Metaphor in the Discovery of Geological Time, Penguin Books, London, 1988, pp. 119-125. 272 Cannon, ibid., p. 113.

127 extinction regularly occur and can reoccur. Progressionism is denied. Man is a special case outside the system.

Lyell’s inclusion of the latter two substantive claims in his four principles leads to an analysis of his key motivation for adopting them. In 1970 Rudwick concluded that the fundamental aim of Lyell’s Principles was to establish:

a nondirectional steady-state theory of the earth, in opposition to theories involving directional changes either in the earth itself or in the forms of life on earth.273

At that time Rudwick did not probe further into the reasons that induced Lyell to adopt this aim, other than stating “Lyell’s contemporaries rightly saw the Principles primarily as the work of a system builder”.274 Subsequently, two different explanatory viewpoints have been advanced to explain why Lyell chose this non-directional, steady-state objective; the first concerns his rejection of an evolutionary origin for man, the second relates to Lyell’s captivation with the so-called ‘verae causae’ concept. Lyell’s reaction to Lamarck’s Philosophie zoologique in 1827 has been noted in an earlier section.275 Bartholomew has maintained that Lyell’s aversion to the possibility that man may have descended from the beasts led him to seek to discredit Lamarck, and attempt to overturn the prevailing concept of organic progressionism.276 Furthermore, Bartholomew has suggested that Lyell’s antipathy to Lamarck’s theory basically stemmed from Lyell’s deistic beliefs and concern for “the dignity and status of man”,277 with the end result that Lyell applied his steady-state theory to both the inorganic and organic worlds, and, in doing so, ruled out evolution. Lyell also developed a modern-day causal argument to disavow progressionism, but it was an argument that “pushed reasonable insights to unreasonable limits”.278 In a subsequent paper written six years later, Bartholomew summed up his interpretation of Lyell’s vision:

273 Rudwick, op. cit. (note 267), p. 8. 274 Ibid. 275 See Section 3.2.3 (4) and Supp. Vol.-Letter 35. 276 Bartholomew, op. cit. (note 148), p. 265. 277 Ibid., pp. 266-268.

128 Few of Lyell’s contemporaries recognised, in Principles, the working out of one consistent vision. (Darwin did not. De la Beche did). But there was a distinctive Lyellian vision – a vision of a world in which constant geological forces supply an endless permutation of life-support conditions, and of a Creator who constantly slots in appropriate species.279

In contrast, Rachel Laudan has presented a case that Lyell’s vision stemmed from his determination to introduce the appropriate methodology into geology: the scientific method adopted by Newton, the method of ‘verae causae’.280 In this way geology could achieve the status of sciences like astronomy. Lyell was certainly familiar with the concept, since two of his earlier intellectual mentors were Herschel and Playfair. In summary, Laudan’s argument is that Lyell’s adherence to the ‘verae causae’ method effectively generated his principle of ‘uniformitarianism’: true causes must be founded on, and limited to, those known to be operating at present.281 Certainly many aspects of Lyell’s steady state theory, and in particular his theory on climate change, illustrate ‘verae causae’ methodology. Ruse has indirectly supported Laudan by suggesting that Herschel’s enthusiasm for Lyell’s work can be traced to the former’s recognition of ‘verae causae’ reasoning.282 The argument advanced by Bartholomew appears more persuasive than Laudan’s ‘verae causae’ case, since Lyell’s anti-progressionist stance is so evident in his Principles, as well as in his letters to Mantell over a 27 year period.283 There is no reason, of course, why both factors cannot be regarded as having had a major influence on Lyell’s thinking. The important point here is to identify Lyell’s key principles, and hence the nature of his ‘causal’ domain. In this regard Cannon provides an appropriate summary:

278 Ibid., on p. 281. 279 M. Bartholomew, ‘The Singularity of Lyell’, History of Science, 1979, 17, on p. 281. 280 R. Laudan, From Mineralogy to Geology: The Foundations of a Science, 1650-1830, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1987, pp. 202-203. 281 Ibid., p. 206. 282 M. Ruse, ‘Charles Lyell and the Philosophers of Science’, The British Journal for the History of Science, 1976, 9, p. 122. 283 In addition to the letter containing Lyell’s reaction to Lamarck (Supp. Vol.-Letter 35), see CL to GAM, 3 March 1850, Supp. Vol.-Letter 221, and Supp. Vol.-Letters 252-269, which demonstrate Lyell’s determination to use the Telerpeton discovery to maintain his anti-progressionist stance.

129 “Lyell’s system is not one of radical actualism, not one of extreme actualism, but one of absolute actualism”.284 Although Lyell’s methodology of ‘absolute actualism’ resulted in few, if any, immediate ‘converts’ among his GSL peers or on the Continent, the overall scope of Principles of Geology was sufficient to establish him as the leading exponent of the ‘causal’ domain that Whewell subsequently termed ‘uniformitarianism’.285

(2) LYELL’S OTHER PUBLICATIONS IN THE 1830s

After 1834 Lyell published 12 papers on a diverse range of geological topics, though most were concerned with some aspect of causality. His range of subjects included the difficulty in explaining how loess was brought into the plains of the Rhine,286 rising land levels in Sweden,287 the origin of vertical lines of flint in chalk,288 evidence that the Canadian climate had been even more extreme in recent times,289 the mode of formation of ‘sandpipes’ in the chalk at Norwich,290 and mammalian fossils found in Suffolk.291 Lyell’s paper on rising land levels in Sweden is of particular interest, since in the first edition of Principles of Geology he referred to “that extraordinary notion proposed in our own times by Von Buch, who imagines that the whole of the land along the northern and western shores of the Baltic was slowly and insensibly rising”, when it had been “free of earthquakes”.292 Lyell’s visit to Sweden confirmed the correctness of Von Buch’s assessment and highlighted Lyell’s previous rigidity in supposing that earthquakes were the only

284 Cannon, op. cit. (note 270), p. 113. 285 W. Whewell, ‘Review of Charles Lyell’s Principles of Geology, vol. 2’, The Quarterly Review, 1832, 47, p. 126. 286 C. Lyell, ‘Observations on the Loamy Deposit called “Loess” in the Valley of the Rhine’ [1834], PGSL, 1833-38, 2, pp. 83-85. Also published in ENPJ, 1834, 17, pp. 110-122. 287 C. Lyell, The Bakerian Lecture, [1834], ‘On the Proofs of a gradual Rising of the Land in certain parts of Sweden, PTRSL, 1835, 125, pp. 1-38. 288 C. Lyell, ‘On Vertical Lines of Flint, traversing Horizontal Strata of Chalk, near Norwich’, BAAS Report 7, 1839, pp. 87-88. 289 C. Lyell, ‘Remarks on some Fossil and Recent Shells, collected by Captain Bayfield, R.N., in Canada’ [1839], TGSL, 1842, 6, pp. 135-142. 290 C. Lyell, ‘On the Origin of the Tubular Cavities filled with Gravel and Sand, called “Sandpipes”, in the Chalk, near Norwich’ [1839], BAAS Report 9, 1840, pp. 65-66. 291 C. Lyell, ‘On Remains of Mammalia in the Crag and London Clay of Suffolk’ [1839], BAAS Report 9, 1840, pp. 69-70. 292 Lyell, Principles of Geology, first ed., vol. 1, pp. 231-232. This point was noted by Rudwick, op. cit. (note 267), p. 16.

130 acceptable cause of land elevation. Although his paper on mammalian fossils in Suffolk was not concerned with causality, it was nevertheless typical, since it gave Lyell a further opportunity to advance his anti-progressionist view-point. Another common feature of Lyell’s geological work during this period is that the subject matter was often appropriate for inclusion in future editions of his Principles or his Elements of Geology, since the topics generally focused on unusual, but pertinent, geological phenomena. For example, the occurrence of the loess in the Rhine basin was subsequently mentioned in Lyell’s sixth edition of his Principles,293 which also included a summary of his paper on rising sea levels in Sweden.294 The phenomenon of vertical lines of flint-stones was described in Elements of Geology.295 However, Lyell’s inclusion of relevant points from his own papers in the various editions of his two main publications only represents the ‘tip of the ice-berg’. In essence, Lyell had established another ‘domain’, the regular updating of geological knowledge in the 12 editions of his Principles, and to a lesser extent, in the six editions of Elements of Geology. Bartholomew assessed Lyell’s position as follows:

In the field of publishing, he had no rival. There was just one book in English which codified and anthologized every scrap of international biological and geological evidence – Principles of Geology….Lyell’s was the only book on offer. He had cornered the market in three volume textbooks in the Earth sciences.296

Lyell’s role as a “supreme anthologizer and codifier”297 of geological textbooks does not, however, constitute a geological domain. It was a consequence of his geological, writing and commercial skills – skills that enabled him to establish formidable barriers of entry to his quasi- monopolistic situation. This aspect is examined in the next chapter.

293 Lyell, Principles of Geology, 6th ed., vol. 1, 1840, p. 286. 294 Ibid., vol. 2, pp. 402-424. 295 Lyell, Elements of Geology, 6th ed., 1865, pp. 320-321. 296 Bartholomew, op. cit. (note 279), p. 290. 297 Ibid.

131 3.3.3 THE NATURE OF THE GEOLOGICAL WORK COMPLETED BY THE OTHER IDENTIFIED GEOLOGISTS IN THE 1830s

The geologists whose work is reviewed in this section includes the members of council, besides Lyell, identified in the final screening list for the 1830 to 1840 decade, namely Buckland, Murchison, Sedgwick and Whewell; Conybeare and De la Beche who were on the penultimate list for that period; Darwin, Egerton, Fitton and Owen who were identified on the penultimate or final lists for the 1840 to 1850 decade with Mantell; and finally, the two exceptions, Greenough and Phillips. Again, emphasis in this section focuses on the extent to which these geologists were recognised as the leading authorities or exponents of a geological domain they had fashioned, or further developed, during the 1830s. To this end considerable use is made of relevant studies in the literature.

(1) BUCKLAND

In 1830 Buckland was 46 years of age, comfortably ensconced at Oxford, and with a secured reputation as one of England’s foremost geologists. Although his 1820s geological domain of diluvialism had become outmoded and incorporated into the broader, ‘modal’ domain of progressionism, Buckland remained one of the leading exponents of this English school of geology. Given these circumstances, it is not surprising that Buckland’s style of geological work exhibited little change during the 1830s. Buckland’s geological output also declined to some extent compared to the previous decade. Besides his 1836 Bridgewater Treatise on the natural theology of geology and mineralogy,298 Buckland produced 13 generally short papers, of which six were published in the GSL’s Proceedings and only one in the Society’s Transactions.299 Most of these papers exhibited Buckland’s

298 W. Buckland, Geology and Mineralogy Considered with Reference to Natural History, 2 vols, Pickering, London, 1836. 299 W. Buckland and H.T. De la Beche, ‘On the Geology of the Neighbourhood of Weymouth and the adjacent Parts of the Coast of Dorset’ [April 1830], TGSL, 1835, 4, pp. 1-46. Because of its nature this paper is best considered as the last of a group of publications by De la Beche on the coastal geology of south and south-western England.

132 distinctive palaeo-ecological approach to various fossil discoveries. Examples include the beaks of extinct fossil fishes,300 the occurrence of silicified tree trunks,301 the adaptation of the present-day sloth,302 and an account of the fossil footsteps of the Cheirotherium.303 Buckland’s most notable publication during the 1830s was his Bridgewater Treatise, Geology and Mineralogy considered with Reference to Natural Theology, which combined a palaeo-ecological, progressionist approach with natural theology. It was not, as Lyell had earlier surmised, an exercise in orthodoxy:

Buckland’s thousand pounder threatens I am told to be extremely orthodox but I hope for the sake of the science & for his fame he will put the matter on a broad ground & not involve himself & all of us by tempting the public once more to believe that Moses was a consummate geologist. In my present position at King’s College I feel the great mischief done by the cave book.304

Lyell, however, was correct in his reporting of the conclusion of this work:

Buckland is reported to have said to his wife when she asked him what he sh.d do for the Bridgewater prize of £1,000 “Why, my dear, if I print my lectures with a sermon at the end it will be quite the thing”.305

In fact, the themes of Buckland’s concluding chapter 24 were the unity of the deity, the provinces of reason and revelation, the fact that geology was auxiliary to theology, and finally, the geological proof of a deity.306 Nevertheless, as Cannon has noted,307 Buckland’s work provided a major contemporary view of British palaeontology, besides incorporating new

300 W. Buckland, ‘A Notice on the Fossil Beaks of Four Extinct Species of Fishes, referrible to the Genus Chimaera, which Occur in the Oolitic and Cretaceous formations of England’ [1835], PGSL, 1838, 2, pp. 205-206. 301 W. Buckland, ‘ On the Occurrence of Silicified Trunks of large trees in the New Red Sandstone Formation or Poikilitic Series at Allesley near Coventry [1836], PGSL, 1838, pp. 439-440. 302 W. Buckland, ‘On the Adaptation of the Structure of the Sloths to their peculiar Mode of Life’, Transactions of the Linnean Society, 1837, 17, pp. 17-28. 303 W. Buckland, ‘An Account of the Footsteps of the Cheirotherium and Five or Six Smaller Animals in the Stone Quarries of Storeton Hill, near Liverpool’, BAAS Report, 1838, 7, p. 85. 304 CL to GAM, 26 November 1832, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 63. (Supp. Vol.-Letter 95). 305 CL to GAM, 18 January 1832, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 63. (Supp. Vol.-Letter 89). 306 Buckland, op. cit. (note 298), pp. 432-443. 307 W.F. Cannon, DSB, 1971, 2, p. 570.

133 investigations on chambered cephalopods, a point that impressed Lyell.308 His synthetic table of strata, published as a coloured plate in Volume 2 of the Treatise, is also worthy of note and deftly summarised the stratigraphy of Europe as then understood. In many respects the two volumes of Buckland’s Bridgewater Treatise can be regarded as a concluding milestone in his geological career; his future geological contributions were less significant. Although Conybeare and Whewell may have been the ‘party theoreticians’ and the more able exponents of progressionism during the early 1830s, Buckland must also be acknowledged as a joint-founder and leader of this domain.

(2) CONYBEARE

Conybeare’s geological work in the 1830s falls into two general categories; first, criticisms of Lyell’s ‘causal’ methodology combined with a defence of progressionism, and of lesser importance, five short articles published in the Philosophical Magazine, three of which concerned coal deposits. All of these papers were completed by 1834, two years before his appointment as vicar at the family living at Axminster, Devon. At the end of the decade Conybeare produced what was effectively his last geological publication, an account of an extraordinary land-slip in Devon.309 Like Buckland, his more significant work was completed in the previous decade. In the 1830s Conybeare was most notable for his espousal of the English school’s progessionist approach to geology, as opposed to Lyell’s less flexible methodology. Conybeare’s criticism of the first volume of Lyell’s Principles of Geology appeared in 1830, and was followed by a further two articles in The Philosophical Magazine in 1830, and 1831.310 In 1832, his general review of geology for the British Association for the Advancement of Science gave him a

308 “I have been most pleased with Buckland on Cephalopoda which is the part I have just read”. CL to GAM, 22 October 1836, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 64. (Supp. Vol.-Letter 145). 309 W.D. Conybeare, ‘Extraordinary Land-slip and great Convulsion of the Coast of Culverhole Point, near Axmouth’ [1839], ENPJ, 1840, 29, pp. 160-164. This account was followed by an illustrated Geological Memoir of the Landslip in Devon, Murray, London, 1840. Conybeare’s actual last publication was an extract from his report ‘On the Country between the Summit of the Malsej Ghaut and the Gungathuree’ [1840], PGSL, 1838-42, 3, p. 225. 310 W.D. Conybeare, ‘On Mr. Lyell’s Principles of Geology’, Philosophical Magazine, 1830, 8, pp. 215-219, continued under the title of ‘An Examination of the Phaenomena of Geology, Which Seem to Bear Most Directly on Theoretical Speculations’, Philosophical Magazine, 1830, 8, pp. 359-362 and 402-406 and 1831, 9, pp. 19-23, 111-117, 188-197, and 258-270.

134 further opportunity to review Lyell’s ‘actualistic’ principles.311 A distinguishing feature of these various critiques is Conybeare’s balanced and rational perspective, as instanced in the following excerpts:

No real philosopher, I conceive, ever doubted that the physical causes which have produced the physical phaenomena were the same in kind, however they may have been modified as to the degree and intensity of their action, by the varying conditions under which they may have operated at different periods…we may still perhaps be permitted to doubt, that an identity of physical conditions can be predicated of the surface of our planet between these periods (the first primordial period of the micaceous slates) and the present….It may perhaps be the most truly philosophical rule to guide the spirit of our investigations, that whereas the actual operations of nature, and those indicated by geological observations, present certain points of analogy, and other points of difference, – so it is equally contrary to a sound spirit of inductive reasoning, to confine our attention exclusively to one class of facts or to the other.312

Whewell and Sedgwick were also active in supporting the essentially moderate position of the progressionists. It may not be entirely coincidental that the last time Lyell mentioned Conybeare in a letter to Mantell occurred when Conybeare made his fair- minded criticisms in the Philosophical Magazine. Lyell was not flattering:

Conybeare is a strange fellow don’t ask me to account for his doing this or that. He carried a letter of introductn, sealed, to a french nat t. in which his friend called him “an odd fish” which came out from Mons.r le zoologer who had difficulty in interpreting at last seized on that part & said “Ah, je vous suis bien oblige mais ou est le Singulier poisson”? When he went down to Herschell’s [sic], Mrs Stewart, H’s mother in law said “H. is so busy he sees no one, yet he is so kind to foreigners I dare say he will see you.” He was so much pleased with your letter that it was queer his not recollecting that a reply was a natural civility. He has hair gone long.313

Conybeare’s geological work effectively ceased in the mid-1830s, when he became vicar at Axminster and pursued other interests. (3) WHEWELL

311 W.D. Conybeare, ‘Report on the Progress, Actual State, and Ulterior Prospects of Geological Science’, BAAS Report, London, 1833, pp. 365-414. 312 Ibid., pp. 406-407.

135 During the 1830s Whewell’s range of publications encompassed mechanics, isomorphism, the status of mineralogy, mathematical aspects of political economy, a series of memoirs on the tides, including the concept of co-tidal lines,314 and the development of a new anemometer.315 In addition, Whewell completed a Bridgewater Treatise316 in 1833, and four years later, published his three volume History of Inductive Sciences.317 His geological output though was limited to three critiques of Lyell’s Principles of Geology in the early 1830s,318 and two anniversary addresses as GSL President in 1838 and 1839.319 This pattern typifies the geological role adopted by Whewell; he was a critic, adjudicator, and exponent of the tenets of the progressionist English school, rather than an original investigator. Like Conybeare, Whewell’s reviews of Lyell’s first two volumes of Principles of Geology were fair, tolerant, and predictable. In fact, there is little discernible difference between the critiques of these two ‘clergyman- specialists’. A feature of Whewell’s reviews is his facility for introducing appropriate new terms and definitions. The term ‘Geological Dynamics’ was suggested to describe a possible separate science “which has for its object to classify and analyse the changes which are perpetually occurring in the inorganic portion of nature”.320 He also categorised the two ‘sects’ in geological dynamics as “Uniformitarians and Catastrophists”.321

313 CL to GAM, 1 July 1831, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 63. (Supp. Vol.-Letter 84). 314 In all, Whewell published 14 memoirs on the tides in PTRSL, 11 of which were completed before 1840. 315 Details of these numerous publications are not listed in the Bibliography since they deal with non- geological matters. A listing is provided in Catalogue of Scientific papers (1800-1863) compiled and published by the Royal Society of London, 1872, 6, pp. 345-346. 316 W. Whewell, Astronomy and General Physics Considered with Reference to Natural Philosophy, Pickering, London, 1833. 317 W. Whewell, History of Inductive Sciences, from the Earliest to the Present Time, 3 vols, London, 1837. 318 W. Whewell,i‘Progress of Geology – Werner according to Cuvier, Lyell and MacCulloch – Hutton according to Playfair and MacCulloch – Antiquity of the Earth,’ ENPJ, 1831 (April-October), pp. 242-267. In this review Whewell’s criticism of Lyell was confined to the assertion that the geological series must have had a beginning.i‘Art. VIII – Principles of Geology;…By Charles Lyell Esq. In 2 vols. Vol. 1,’ The British Critic, Quarterly Theological Review, 1831, 9, pp. 180-206.i ‘Principles of Geology;...By Charles Lyell, Esq. Vol. II,’ The Quarterly Review, 1832, 47, pp. 103-132. 319 W. Whewell,i‘Anniversary address to the Geological Society, 16 February 1838,’ PGSL, 1838, 2, pp. 624-649.i‘Anniversary address to the Geological Society, 15 February 1839,’ PGSL, 1839, 3, pp. 61-98. 320 Whewell, [Review of Principles of Geology,Vol.1], The British Critic, 1831, p. 195. 321 Whewell, [Review of Principles of Geology, Vol. 2], The Quarterly Review, 1832, p. 126.

136 In view of Whewell’s limited participation in ‘normal’ geological investigations, it is difficult to assign him any domain, other than as a leading spokesman for the progressionists. However, Whewell brought to this joint- domain not only his prestige as a polymath, but considerable influence in his assumed role of ‘cultural policeman’ of English science. In a review of a recent analysis of Whewell and his work,322 Morrell appraised him as follows:

Whewell may also be regarded as a cultural policeman, a cultural critic, a metascientist who deemed it proper for him to be the judge and purifier of all knowledge. As the cartographer of the various scientific disciplines, Whewell defined boundaries and contours….Whewell was a shaper of people, projects, subjects and institutions.323

In short, by the 1830s Whewell had fashioned a separate sphere of influence as a ‘scientific adjudicator’, which enabled him to exert considerable sway on English geological thinking, as well as on other scientific disciplines.

(4) SEDGWICK

During the 1830s Sedgwick’s most important geological accomplishment was the identification and tentative fashioning of a major, new ‘taxonomic’ domain, the Cambrian System. In this regard his endeavours were closely interlinked with those of Murchison, who concomitantly identified and established the overlying Silurian System. Moreover, in the process of founding these two new domains, Murchison and Sedgwick also established the Devonian System. Although most problems associated with the Devonian System were resolved by the early 1840s, difficulties in defining the boundaries of the Cambrian and Silurian continued until the 1870s. The nature and background of the resulting controversies are well documented in the literature. In particular, Secord’s analysis of the Cambrian-Silurian boundary dispute,324

322 M. Fisch and S. Schaffer (eds), William Whewell: A Composite Portrait, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1991. 323 J.B. Morrell, ‘The Judge and Purifier of All’ [Review of M. Fisch and S. Schaffer (eds), William Whewell: A Composite Portrait, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1991], History of Science, 1992, 30, p. 107. 324 Secord, op. cit. (note 1).

137 and Rudwick’s detailed study of the Devonian controversy,325 provide comprehensive and insightful accounts of how stratigraphic domains were established at that time. Additionally, Hallam has given an excellent summary of both controversies.326 Following their joint field-work in Scotland and the Alps in the late 1820s, Sedgwick and Murchison began preliminary, but separate surveys, of the Welsh greywacke or ‘Transition rocks’ in 1831. Such an investigation was a logical follow-on of Sedgwick’s earlier field-work and his desire to complete Part II of Conybeare and Phillips’s Outlines of the Geology of England and Wales.327 On the other hand, Murchison initially had no particular incentive to investigate these formations.328 Sedgwick, who favoured a structural rather than a palaeontological approach to stratigraphic investigations, chose to work in north Wales where the sparsely fossiliferous greywacke underlay a major unconformity. As a result he was forced to adopt a ‘marker bed’ well down in the sequence (Bala Limestone) and worked on the ‘lower greywacke’.329 Murchison worked to the south and east of Sedgwick and quickly realised that his fossiliferous and relatively straightforward, ‘upper greywacke’ sequence was a potential major domain. Unfortunately, the two men did not correlate Sedgwick’s marker bed with its stratigraphic equivalent in Murchison’s sequence (Caradoc Sandstone). Accordingly, when Sedgwick and Murchison announced their respective new geological systems at the 1835 BAAS Conference in Dublin,330 neither was aware that Sedgwick’s Upper Cambrian effectively overlapped Murchison’s Lower Silurian sequence. Partly as a result of the need for both men to investigate and clarify De la Beche’s claim, in December 1834, that Coal- Measure plants had been found in the North Devon greywacke, the impending Silurian-Cambrian boundary dispute remained dormant until the early 1840s.

325 Rudwick, op. cit. (note 1). 326 Hallam, op. cit. (note 38), pp. 68-86. 327 Conybeare and Phillips, op. cit. (note 25). 328 Secord, op. cit. (note 1), p. 50. 329 Lyell was evidently not impressed with Sedgwick’s prospects for this field-work. In a letter to Mantell he commented: “Sedgwick in town & has been rather I should say wasting his giant strength on a barren primary district in Wales, which he owns was like ‘rubbing himself against a grindstone’.” CL to GAM, 18 January 1832, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 63, (Supp. Vol.-Letter 89). 330 A. Sedgwick, and R.I.M. Murchison, ‘On the Silurian and Cambrian Systems, Exhibiting the Order in which the Older Sedimentary Strata Succeed each Other in England and Wales’, 1835 BAAS Report, part 2, 1836, pp. 59-61.

138 Thus both men claimed their respective, lower Palaezoic, stratigraphic domains in the 1830s, but the extent and definition of their proposed systems was far from settled. Although the declaration of the Devonian as a separate system was jointly made by Sedgwick and Murchison in 1839,331 Rudwick’s analysis indicates that the latter was more influential in initiating and gaining contemporary acceptance for this domain. Nevertheless, during the 1830s Sedgwick was a key participant in the establishment of three major geological domains, the two ‘taxonomic’ domains of the Cambrian and Silurian Systems, and the ‘modal’ domain of the English school. Furthermore, as a result of his field-work on the complex strata and slates of north Wales, Sedgwick was able to produce an important paper explaining the cause and distinctive features of stratification, cleavage, and jointing in rocks.332

(5) MURCHISON

To a large extent the essential points relating to Murchison’s geological work in the 1830s have been mentioned in the previous section concerning Sedgwick. Differences in the original motivations and methodologies of the two men have also been noted. A further notable difference relates to their respective attitudes to the new stratigraphic domains. Although Murchison ‘stumbled’ across his Silurian domain,333 he quickly recognised the potential of the opportunity presented to him and set about exploiting it to the full. Murchison’s aspirations and attitude are summed up in one of his GSL Anniversary addresses:

The perpetuity of a name affixed to any group of rocks through his original research, is the highest distinction to which any working geologist can aspire…it is in truth his monument.334

331 A. Sedgwick and R.I. Murchison, ‘Classification of the older stratified Rocks of Devonshire and Cornwall’, Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science, series 3, 1839, 14, pp. 241-260. 332 A. Sedgwick, ‘Remarks on the Structure of Large Mineral Masses, and especially on the Chemical Changes produced in the Aggregation of Stratified Rocks during different periods after their Deposition’, TGSL, 1835, 3, pp. 461-486. 333 See note 4. 334 R.I.M. Murchison, ‘Anniversary Address of the President’ [18 February 1842], PGSL, 1842, 3, p. 649. Murchison’s statement is also cited in Rudwick, The Great Devonian Controversy, p. 386.

139 In pursuing this aim, Murchison was very much assisted in his methodology of using fossils for identifying and establishing Silurian strata. In this regard, Secord has commented as follows:

While Sedgwick was mired in Wales and the Lake District, trying to use a combination of structural, palaeontological, and lithological criteria to group the older rocks, Murchison and his followers could colour thousands of square miles on the geological map of distant lands….Murchison almost never referred to the length of time represented by the Silurian. His concern lay instead with the distinctiveness of its fauna, and above all with the acreage that it occupied on the maps of the world.335

In contrast to Sedgwick, Murchison lost no time in proclaiming his Silurian domain. As early as 1834, Murchison made arrangements with John Murray, London, to publish his findings and a prospectus was circulated in August of that year.336 However, due to continuing new discoveries, and the need for specialists to describe the fossils collected, publication of Murchison’s Silurian System337 was not achieved until 1839, when it was still not realised that Sedgwick’s Upper Cambrian was conflated with Murchison’s Lower Silurian. Murchison was also more active than Sedgwick in submitting papers on his ongoing ‘greywacke’ researches. During the years 1833 to 1836, Murchison published ten papers on the sedimentary rocks below the New Red Sandstone of south Wales and south-west England.338 Over the same period Sedgwick’s only publication that directly related to his Cambrian investigations was his joint-paper with Murchison, read at the 1835 BAAS meeting, that announced the two new geological systems.339 Muchison is unique amongst the identified elite geologists in that he founded two, major ‘taxonomic’ domains in the 1830s, the Silurian and the Devonian Systems. Additionally, he founded the Permian System in the early 1840s. The ‘proclamation’ of the Devonian was important to Murchison,

335 J.A. Secord, op. cit. (note 22), p. 85. 336 J.C. Thackray, ‘R.I. Murchison’s Silurian System (1839)’, Journal of the Society for the Bibliography of Natural History, 1978, 9, p. 64. 337 R.I. Murchison, The Silurian System, 2 vols, Murray, London, 1839. 338 These papers are listed in the Bibliography of this thesis. 339 Sedgwick and Murchison, op. cit. (note 330).

140 since it enabled him to maintain that the Silurian pre-dated any land plants.340 The validity of the Devonian system was established in the early 1840s. On the other hand, Muchison’s determination to defend and extend the bounds of his Silurian domain continued throughout the 1840s and 1850s.

(6) DE LA BECHE

The geological work of De la Beche during the 1830s reflects his mixed fortunes throughout this period. In 1830-1831, De la Beche published two books on geology,341 as well as three varied papers,342 and decided to make a geological survey of Devonshire. This was a logical choice of ‘territory’ for him at the time, considering the ‘occupied’ stratigraphic domains in southern and south-eastern England. Moreover, new Ordnance Survey maps had recently become available for that area.343 As a result of a major decline in his financial circumstances, however, De la Beche found it necessary to submit a proposal to the Ordnance in 1832 to complete his Devonshire geological survey for £300. He accomplished this task in 1835 and proposed that similar surveys be conducted elsewhere. The net result was the establishment of the Geological Survey of Great Britain and the appointment of De la Beche as its first Director. He then commenced Geological Survey work in Cornwall, and afterwards in the coal-fields of south Wales. Until 1839, De la Beche largely carried out his full-time survey work single- handedly. In 1834-1835 De la Beche wrote two more geological books,344 but in many respects his most consequential publication was the innocuously titled note ‘On the anthracite found near Biddeford in North Devon’,345 read at a

340 Hallam, op. cit. (note 38), p. 76. 341 H.T. De la Beche,iSections and Views illustrative of Geological Phenomena, Treuttel and Wurtz, London, 1830.iA Geological Manual, Treuttel and Wurtz, London, 1831. A second, corrected and enlarged edition was printed in 1832. 342 H.T. De la Beche,i‘On the geographical distribution of Organic Remains in the Oolite Series of England and France’, Philosophical Magazine, 1830, 7, pp. 81-95, 202-205, 250-268, 334-351; and 8, pp. 35-44, 208-213.i‘Notes on the formation of extensive Conglomerate and Gravel Deposits’, Philosophical Magazine, 1830, 7, pp. 161-171.i‘On the Geology of the shores of the Gulf of La Spezia’ [1830], PGSL, 1834, 1, pp. 164-167. 343 V.A. Eyles, DSB, 1971, 4, p. 10. 344 H.T. De la Beche,iResearches in Theoretical Geology, Knight, London, 1834, andiHow to Observe: Geology, Knight, London, 1835. 345 H.T. De la Beche, ‘On the anthracite found near Biddeford in North Devon’ [1834], PGSL, 1838, 2, pp. 106-107.

141 GSL meeting in December, 1834. In this note De la Beche reported the anomalous discovery of Coal-Measure plants in the North Devon ‘grauwacke’346 to the astonishment and annoyance of Murchison. Subsequent investigations by Murchison and Sedgwick led to the identification of the Devonian system. De la Beche’s major, official publication of the 1830s, Report on the Geology of Cornwall, Devon, and Somerset,347 came out in February 1839, a month after Murchison’s Silurian System, but in his 648 page report De la Beche did not sanction the terms Cambrian and Silurian, nor acknowledge the Devonian system. The beds containing the Coal-Measure plants (Culm) were correlated with the Upper Grauwacke and therefore regarded as having a local equivalence with Murchison’s Silurian. Rudwick has interpreted De la Beche’s non-committal attitude to these formations as indicative of his sceptical approach to geology.348 On the other hand, De la Beche had no incentive to be over-zealous in accepting Murchison’s conclusions. In hindsight, it can be seen that De la Beche missed the opportunity to identify a major stratigraphic domain, the Devonian system, in his chosen geological province.349 Furthermore, by the end of the decade all of the major stratigraphic domains had effectively been taken up. Consequently, in order to achieve increased geological status, the best alternative for De la Beche, and the one adopted, was to establish a ‘modal’ domain within the Geological Survey. His appointment as its Director in 1835 had given him financial security, but not yet a position of significant power or influence, since he had no staff to direct or influence until 1839.350 Nevertheless, De la Beche exhibited considerable political and manipulative skills in also establishing the Museum of Economic Geology as a separate, and additional, future power base. H.E. Wilson has commented as follows on De la Beche’s skills in this regard:

346 De la Beche adopted the Continental spelling of this term. 347 H.T. De la Beche, Report on the Geology of Cornwall, Devon, and Somerset, Longman, London, 1839. 348 Rudwick, op. cit. (note 15), p. 228. 349 This point is made in J.S. Flett, The First Hundred Years of the Geological Survey of Great Britain, London, 1937, p. 32. 350 In 1839 J. Phillips and J. Rees were respectively appointed to palaeontological and geological positions in the Survey while R. Phillips and T. Reeks were appointed to the Museum of Practical Geology. J A Secord, ‘The Geological Survey of Great Britain as a Research School’, History of Science, 1986, 24, pp. 228-229.

142 The conventional view of De la Beche as an innovator of geological science, trying endlessly to advance his infant survey for the benefit of society, must be amended somewhat when we read the comments of some of his contemporaries. Murchison, for instance, writing to Sedgwick: ‘De la Beche is a dirty dog, there is plain English and there is no mincing the matter. I know him to be a thorough jobber and a great intriguer’. Or Ramsey, who noted that though he pretended to be open, frank and cordial, he was really ‘ – an artful dodger, for ever working his own interest, heedless of that of others’. Or Joseph Beete Jukes: ‘Poor Sir Henry started the survey very much for his own honour and glory’.351

However, despite these retrospective jibes, at the close of the decade De la Beche had attained a position of power at the Geological Survey that would enable him to fashion a major ‘modal’ domain in the 1840s.

(7) FITTON

Fitton’s geological investigations tapered off during the 1830s. His published work352 was limited to three relatively minor papers dealing with aspects of his domain,353 one general article,354 and a popular booklet, A Geological Sketch of the Vicinity of Hastings.355 Accordingly, Fitton merely maintained his minor domain, the succession of beds between the oolite and the chalk, throughout the decade.

(8) GREENOUGH

Greenough continued to hold influential positions in English geology throughout the 1830s. He was appointed GSL president for a unique third

351 H.E. Wilson, Down to Earth: One hundred and fifty years of the British Geological Survey, Scottish Academic Press, Edinburgh and London, 1985, p. 9. 352 Although Fitton’s major paper, ‘On Some of the Strata between the Chalk and the Oxford Oolite’, op. cit. (note 211), was published in 1836. It was read in June,1827. 353 W.H. Fitton,i‘A notice respecting some points in the section of the coast near St. Leonard’s and Hastings’ [1833], PGSL, 1838, 2, pp. 1-3.i‘Notice on the junction of the Portland and Purbeck strata on the coast of Dorsetshire’ [1835], PGSL, 1838, 2, pp. 185-187.i‘Deux lettres addressées à M. Constant Prévost, sur la comparaison des couches de la côte du Bas Boulonnais, avec leurs équivalentes en Angleterre’, Bulletin de la Société géologique de France, 1838-39, 10, pp. 436-454. 354 W.H. Fitton, ‘Ancient Geological Changes in England’, ENPJ, 1833, 14, pp. 300-306. 355 W.H. Fitton, A Geological Sketch of the Vicinity of Hastings, Longman, 1833.

143 term in 1833 and was chairman of the 1833 BAAS Geology and Geography committee at Cambridge, deputy-chairman at the Edinburgh meeting in the following year, and vice-president at Bristol in 1836. Greenough also retained his geological scepticism, which is evident in his only publication of the 1830s, the segment of his 1834 Presidential address that dealt with the elevation of mountains.356 In this paper Greenough displayed the same sceptical approach manifested in his 1819 publication, A Critical Examination of the First Principles of Geology. At the beginning of his 1834 article, Greenough doubted the validity of Von Hoff’s report that several tracts of land were upraised in Java in 1771,357 denied Mrs Graham’s report that the 1822 earthquake in Chile had raised the coastline over a distance of 100 miles,358 and was dubious of Von Buch’s statement that the Swedish coast was gradually rising along the Baltic coast.359 Greenough’s next step was to query all assigned causes for the elevation of land. Volcanic eruptions had insufficient power to raise continents; explanations based on the central heat of the earth were not acceptable, since the concept that the earth’s centre possessed heat had not been proved, as was the notion that the deepest mines are the warmest. Finally, the notion that elevation may be caused by the forcible injection of igneous into sedimentary rocks was introduced with the comment: “To put this theory to the test, it is natural to inquire, what igneous rocks are? My answer is, whatever geological speculators think proper to call so.”360 Throughout this article Greenough typically offered no positive opinions of his own. The fact that Greenough was re-elected as GSL president for a unique third term, during the 1830s indicates no significant diminution in his geological status and influence. Accordingly, it is considered that he maintained his position as the leading exponent of the sceptical approach to geology during this decade.

(9) PHILLIPS

356 G.B. Greenough, ‘Remarks on the Theory of the Elevation of Mountains’, ENPJ, 1834, 17, pp. 205-227. 357 Ibid., p. 207. 358 Ibid., pp. 207-209. 359 Ibid., p. 212.

144 Following the success of the first part of his Illustrations of the Geology of Yorkshire, which was published in 1829 and dealt with the Mesozoic formations along the east coast of Yorkshire, Phillips announced in 1831 that his next volume would describe the underlying Carboniferous strata of that county. He had heralded such an investigation in 1827.361 The new volume was published in 1836.362 Like the earlier volume, Part II is notable for the emphasis and detail placed on the fossil content of the strata. In doing so, Phillips provided a needed palaeontological reference base for the various investigations that were being carried out on the underlying ‘greywacke’ in the south-west of England. Furthermore, Rudwick has noted that one of the innovative features of the 1836 publication was Phillips’s demonstration of how the Carboniferous Mountain Limestone varied in a lateral sense, a finding that all geologists needed to take into account in other areas, and with other formations.363 For these reasons Phillips’s new work “was no provincial gap filling but a contribution to the construction of geological science”.364 It also established a major, new stratigraphic domain for Phillips, the geology of Yorkshire. Although Phillips’ major regional studies of Yorkshire can be regarded as the highlight of his geological work until the mid-1830s, he also carried out a diverse range of other investigations. These included a description of a new, self-registering thermometer,365 a commentary on the geology of Havre,366 and a paper on the effects of the atmosphere in wasting building surfaces.367 In 1834 his general treatise, A Guide to Geology,368 was well received, with a second, revised edition coming out two years later. Phillips was now ready for ‘broader pastures’, even

360 Ibid., p. 223. 361 Phillips, op. cit. (note 244), p. 18. 362 J. Phillips, Illustrations of the Geology of Yorkshire; or, a Description of the Strata and Organic Remains: accompanied by a Geological Map, Sections and Diagrams, and Figures of the Fossils: Part II The Mountain Limestone District, London, Murray, 1836. 363 Rudwick, op. cit. (note 1), p. 146. 364 Knell, op. cit. (note 248), p. 72. 365 J. Phillips, ‘Description of a new self-registering Maximum Thermometer’, BAAS Report, 1832, pp. 574-575. 366 J. Phillips, ‘On the Geology of Havre’, Philosophical Magazine, 1830, 7, pp. 195-198. 367 J. Phillips, ‘On some effects of the Atmosphere in wasting the surfaces of Buildings and Rocks’ [1831], PGSL, 1834, 1, pp. 323-324.

145 though he could not afford to leave his York base. In 1832 he accepted the additional responsibility of part-time BAAS Assistant Secretary, two years later he was also appointed to the Professorship of Geology at King’s College, London, and in late 1836 agreed to provide De la Beche with palaeontological assistance. His geological aspirations were now directed to establishing a national rather than a regional domain.

(10) DARWIN

Following his return to England in 1836 after the Beagle voyage, Darwin was quickly accepted into the ‘inner circle’ of the GSL, because of the interest he had aroused by his geological letters sent back to England.369 In 1838, he was appointed GSL secretary. Darwin’s geological work is of particular interest, since he established a ‘causal’ domain based on Lyell’s actualistic principles. Like Mantell, Darwin was one of the few geologists in the mid-1830s who accepted Lyell’s ‘principles’ with few, if any, qualifications.370 Darwin’s observations on the volcanic and limestone deposits at Saint Jago in the Cape Verde Islands,371 in 1832, gave him an early appreciation of how that island had undergone both subsidence and elevation in a gradual, non-catastrophic way. His understanding of the earth’s crustal movements developed further after he visited Chile and witnessed the Concepción earthquake in February, 1835, the topic of the first paper actually read by Darwin at the GSL.372 Four months later, Darwin read another paper, much broader in scope, in which he deduced areas of both elevation and subsidence in the Pacific Ocean as a result of

368 J. Phillips, A Guide to Geology, Longman, 1834. 369 C. Darwin,iExtracts from Letters Addressed to Professor Henslow, Cambridge Philosophical Society (privately printed), Cambridge, 1835.i‘Geological Notes Made During a Survey of the East and West Coasts of South America’ [1835], PGSL, 1835, 2, pp. 210-212. [Read by Sedgwick] 370 Hallam makes this point on p. 55 of his Great Geological Controversies, 1983. 371 C. Darwin, Journal of Researches into the Natural History and Geology of the Countries visited during the Voyage of H.M.S. Beagle round the World under the command of Capt. Fitz Roy, R.N., H. Colburn, London, 1839, pp. 1-6. 372 C. Darwin, ‘Observations of Proofs of Recent Elevation on the Coast of Chili, made during the survey of H.M.S. Beagle, commanded by Capt. Fitzroy’ [4 Jan. 1837], PGSL, 1838, 2, pp. 446-449.

146 his investigations into coral reef formation.373 Rudwick has commented374 that Darwin’s primary concern in this paper was crustal mobility, and not coral reef formation, though that was in itself a major geological issue. In the following year Darwin read a further paper on the connection between earthquakes, volcanoes, and continental uplift.375 Hallam’s assessment is that this paper demonstrates “an explicit application of the Lyellian doctrine”.376 Rudwick concluded that it “embodied much more explicitly a major causal theory of crustal mobility with obvious global pretensions” and that “Darwin remained an elite geologist for the rest of his time in London and for several years afterwards”.377 For the purpose of this review, Darwin’s 1838 paper marks the establishment of his ‘causal’ domain, crustal mobility. Darwin’s greatest geological success was probably his theory of coral reef formation that was founded on his understanding of slow crustal movements and associated changes in sea-levels. Unfortunately, this line of reasoning was also applied to his erroneous explanation of the parallel roads of Glen Roy in Scotland,378 Darwin’s last paper of the 1830s.

(11) EGERTON

Like Darwin and Owen, Egerton’s geological work is reviewed in this section because of his inclusion in the penultimate screening list for the 1840 to 1850 decade. In 1830, Egerton was 24 years of age, an Oxford graduate who had studied under Buckland and Conybeare, and a ninth baronet. Although he only joined the GSL in 1829, Egerton served as a

373 C. Darwin, ‘On Certain Areas of Elevation and Subsidence in the Pacific and Indian Oceans, as Deduced from the Study of Coral Formations’ [31 May 1837], PGSL, 1838, 2, pp. 552-554. 374 M.J.S. Rudwick, ‘Charles Darwin in London: The Integration of Public and Private Science’, Isis, 1982, 73, pp. 186-206 p. 194, note 20. 375 C. Darwin, ‘On the Connexion of Certain Volcanic Phaenomena, and on the Formation of Mountain Chains and Volcanos, as the Effects of Continental Elevations’ [7 March 1838], PGSL, 1838, 2, pp. 654-660. 376 Hallam, op. cit. (note 38), p. 56. 377 Rudwick, op. cit. (note 374), p. 194. 378 C. Darwin, ‘Observations on the Parallel Roads of Glen Roy, and of Other Parts of Lochaber in Scotland, with an Attempt to Prove that They are of Marine Origin’, PTRSL, 1839, 129, pp. 39-81.

147 member of council from 1831 to 1840, declining the presidency after Whewell’s term ended in 1839.379 Egerton’s main scientific interest was the study and collection of fossil fish, much of his collecting being carried out in conjunction with Viscount Cole. However, during the 1830s Egerton’s geological activities are best described as general-palaeontological, rather than ichthyological, since only two of his eleven publications in this period directly concern fossil fish.380 This orientation changed in the next decade when Egerton established a taxonomic domain in ichthyology.

(12) OWEN

In 1830 Owen was 26 years of age, 14 years younger than Mantell, with whom he shared some similar background features.381 Owen had been appointed Assistant Conservator at the Hunterian Museum in 1827; nine years later he became Hunterian professor at the Royal College of Surgeons. Unlike Mantell, Owen was a professional comparative anatomist who did not have any career choice dilemmas in his early career. Until 1837, nearly all of Owen’s publications were concerned with the anatomy of a wide range of living species, and not with palaeontological matters. One such publication, a Memoir on the Pearly Nautilus,382 brought him considerable acclaim. However, Owen’s pattern of research changed to some extent following his introduction to Darwin by Lyell,383 in October 1836. Two months later Lyell informed Mantell:

379 Rudwick, op. cit. (note 1), p. 271. 380 P. de M.G. Egerton,i‘Catalogue of Fossil Fish in the Collections of Lord Cole and Sir Phillip Grey Egerton, arranged alphabetically; with references to the localities, geological positions, and published descriptions of the species’, Philosophical Magazine, 1836, 8, pp. 366-373.i‘On the Discovery of Ichthyolites in the south-western portion of the North-Staffordshire coal-field’, PGSL, 1838, 2, pp. 202-203. 381 Owen lost his father (a West India merchant) when he was 5 years of age, attended the Lancaster Grammar School, and in 1820 was apprenticed to the first of three Lancaster surgeons. Like Mantell, Owen also studied at St. Bartholomew’s Hospital with Abernethy. He qualified as a Member of the Royal College of Surgeons in 1826. DSB. 382 R. Owen, Memoir on the Pearly Nautilus (Nautilus Pompilius, Linn.), with Illustrations of its External and Internal Structure, Wood, London, 1832. 383 W.C. Williams, DSB, 1974, 10, p. 261.

148 The College of Surgeons are to have Mr Darwin’s South American fossil bones, a new gigantic rodent quadruped & anteater & other wonders which Owen & Clift are to describe. Models to be given to the Geolog.l & other institutions.384

At this particular time Mantell’s personal, professional and financial circumstances at Brighton were in a state of chaos and virtual despair.385 If his state-of-affairs had been stable in 1836, it is conceivable that Lyell would have suggested to Darwin that Mantell examine and describe these fossils. However, the Lyell-Mantell correspondence during 1836-1837, as well as Mantell’s entries in his Private Journal, indicate that Mantell was so pre-occupied with his personal problems that there was no thought of him undertaking this work. Owen’s first palaeontological paper, on Darwin’s gigantic fossil rodent, the Toxodon,386 was read to the GSL in 1837. It was followed by seven publications on other South American and English fossils in 1838, and a further seven in the following year. By the end of the decade his palaeontological publications amounted to 15387 out of a total of 105 papers for the decade. Owen had discovered a new area of research where his skills as a comparative anatomist could be used to the full. Moreover, following Cuvier’s death in 1832, an implicit struggle developed between Grant,388 Mantell, and Owen about who should become the ‘English Cuvier’.389 Fossil reptiles constituted the main agonistic390 field for these three contenders. At the BAAS meeting at Liverpool in September, 1837, Owen was requested to draw up a report on the present state of knowledge of the fossil reptiles of Great Britain.391 His first report on fossil marine reptiles

384 CL to GAM, 31 December 1836, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 64. (Supp. Vol.-Letter 146). 385 Mantell’s circumstances are fully described in the next chapter of the thesis. 386 R. Owen, ‘Description of the Cranium of the Toxodon Platensis, a gigantic extinct mammiferous species, referrible by its dentition to the Rodentia, but with affinities to the Pachydermata and the herbivorous Cetacea’ [1837], PGSL, 1833-38, 2, pp. 541-542. 387 These papers are not listed in the Bibliography but were identified in The Royal Society Catalogue of Scientific Papers, 1870, 4, pp. 718-722. 388 Robert Edward Grant (1793-1874). Comparative anatomist. Professor of Comparative Anatomy and Zoology, University College, London, 1827-1874. DNB. 389 See H.S. Torrens, ‘Politics and Palaeontology: Richard Owen and the Invention of Dinosaurs’, in: J.O. Farlow and M.K. Brett-Surman (eds), The Complete Dinosaur, Indiana University Press, Indiana, 1997, pp. 175-190. 390 This phrase has been borrowed from Rudwick’s The Great Devonian Controversy, p. 435. 391 BAAS Report for meeting at Newcastle in Sept.1837, 1838, p. xix.

149 was read at the 1839 BAAS meeting.392 Owen’s second report, dealing with the land-based fossil reptiles in Mantell’s area, was not read until the Plymouth meeting in 1841. Thus at the end of the 1830s Owen had identified, but not fashioned, one of his future domains, British fossil reptiles.

3.4.4 REVIEW OF THE GEOLOGICAL WORK COMPLETED BY THE IDENTIFIED GEOLOGISTS IN THE 1830s

In contrast to the previous decade, the 1830s was a period in which the five ‘gentleman and clergyman-specialists’ identified in the final screening lists fashioned a diverse range of major, new, geological domains. Not all of these were in existence throughout the decade. Phillips’s domain was established in 1836 and Darwin’s in 1838. Although Murchison and Sedgwick’s Palaeozoic domains were effectively founded in 1835, the Silurian and Cambrian Systems were not finally defined until three decades later. Conybeare effectively ceased geological activities after 1836. Owen and Egerton’s palaeontological domains were only in the process of being fashioned in the late 1830s. The other member included on the penultimate list for the 1830s, De la Beche, was well positioned by the end of the decade to establish a ‘modal’ domain at the Geological Survey. The two exceptions, Greenough and Phillips, respectively maintained and fashioned their domains. Mantell, who was on the penultimate but not final list for the 1840- 1850 decade, stands out as the exception. During the 1830s his triumphs included the discovery of the Hylaeosaurus and the award of the GSL’s Wollaston Medal,393 but his changed personal circumstances after moving to Brighton effectively prevented him from establishing a geological domain. In 1837, Owen was able to move into the area of fossil reptiles, virtually by default. The overall situation is illustrated in the table on the following page.

392 R. Owen, ‘Report on British Fossil Reptiles’, Report of the BAAS meeting held at Liverpool in September 1839, 1840, pp. 43-126. 393 In 1835 Mantell was the second recipient of this award. See CL to GAM, 18, 21 February 1835, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 64, (Supp. Vol.-Letters 121, 124).

150 TABLE 3.1 - DOMAINS ESTABLISHED BY THE IDENTIFIED GEOLOGISTS IN THE 1830s

Legend

MAJOR MAJOR DOMAIN MINOR IDENTIFIED NO DOMAIN (Tentative, Joint DOMAIN DOMAIN DOMAIN or declining)

IDENTIFIED ON PENULTIMATE ON FINAL EXCLUSIONS BUT NOT FINAL LIST SCEEENING LIST

GREENOUGH CONYBEARE BUCKLAND Modal Domain Joint Modal Domain Joint Modal Domain (Scepticism) (English school) (English school)

PHILLIPS DE la BECHE LYELL Taxonomic Domain Modal Domain Causal Domain (Geology of Yorkshire) (Geological Survey) (Absolute actualism)

MURCHISON Taxonomic Domain (Silurian and Devonian Systems)

SEDGWICK Taxonomic and Joint Modal Domain (Cambrian System and English school)

WHEWELL Joint Modal Domain (English school)

DOMAINS ESTABLISHED OR IDENTIFIED IN THE 1830s BY THOSE LISTED ON THE PENULTIMATE OR FINAL LISTS FOR 1840-1850

DARWIN FITTON EGERTON MANTELL OWEN Causal Domain Taxonomic Taxonomic – Taxonomic (Crustal Mobility) (Chalk - Oolite) (Fossil Fish) – (Fossil Reptiles)

151 3.4 1840 - 1850

3.4.1 THE GEOLOGICAL WORK OF MANTELL, 1840 - 1852394

The scope of Mantell’s investigations during this period is remarkably broad, considering the state of his personal circumstances in the late 1830s. Following the forced sale of his fossil collection in 1838, Mantell moved to Clapham, where he had purchased a medical practice. His wife, eldest daughter, and eldest son left him at this time, and in 1840 his youngest daughter, aged 17 years, died after a long illness. In 1841, Mantell’s already poor health deteriorated further, following a near fatal carriage accident that exacerbated his already damaged spine.395 Furthermore, Mantell was 50 years of age in 1840. During this last stage of his career, all of Mantell’s scientific publications were palaeontological in nature, with the exception of a geological booklet written for the BAAS meeting at Southampton in 1846.396 He did not, however, focus his attention exclusively on any one group of fossils, although large land reptiles remained a major area of interest. In fact this contested domain constituted Mantell and Owen’s main agonistic field throughout the 1840s, and more particularly, during 1841-42. The range of other palaeontological subjects investigated by Mantell during this decade included large land reptiles, turtles, the mammal-like reptile Telerpeton, birds and evidence of their foot-prints, fruits, molluskite, belemnites, the fluviatile mollusc Unio, and foraminifera. Sarjeant was sufficiently impressed to comment: “Indeed he [Mantell] can justly be considered the first palaeontologist to work on the whole spectrum of fossils, from smallest to largest”.397 During the 1830s, Mantell’s publications on fossil reptiles only comprised the chapter describing the Hylaeosaurus in Geology of the South-

394 Because Mantell died on 10 November 1852, this review of his geological work extends to that date. 395 Details of these events in Mantell’s life are fully described in the next chapter of this thesis. 396 G.A. Mantell, Geological Excursions round the Isle of Wight and along the Adjacent Coast of Dorsetshire illustrative of the most Interesting Geological Phenomena, and Organic Remains, Bohn, London, 1846. 397 W.A. Sarjeant, ‘Gideon Mantell and the “Xanthidia”,’ Archives of Natural History, 1992, 19, pp. 91-100 on p. 91.

152 east of England, published in 1833, and his 1834 description of the Maidstone Iguanodon.398 In contrast, during this seven year period Owen had described Darwin’s large, South American fossils, for which he had been awarded the GSL’s Wollaston Medal in 1838, submitted a report on fossil marine reptiles at the 1839 BAAS meeting, and was in the process of preparing his Part II report on land-based fossil reptiles for the BAAS meeting at Plymouth in August, 1841. The late 1830s was an opportune time for Owen to ‘catch-up’ on Mantell. During these years no fossil discoveries had been made in England that would have enabled a new interpretation or classification to be given to the three large land reptiles discovered so far – the Megalosaurus, Hylaeosaurus, and Iguanodon.399 The fossil bones that had been found until this time were invariably incomplete and broken-up, and not infrequently mixed with other skeletal fragments. In regard to the Iguanodon, for example, Lyell made the following comments in his 1851 Anniversary Address:

He [Mantell] computed that in the course of twenty years he had found teeth and bones of the Iguanodon which must have belonged to no less than 71 distinct individuals, varying in age and magnitude from the reptile just burst from the egg, to one of which the femur measured 24 inches in circumference. Yet it was not until the relics of all these individuals were known that a solitary example of a jaw-bone was obtained.400

In February 1841, Mantell re-entered the field of land-based fossil reptiles and read a paper at the Royal Society describing a fragment of a presumed jaw-bone of a young Iguanodon.401 However, his evidence was not unequivocal. Three months later Mantell read another paper describing fossil turtles found in the chalk,402 and emphasized his return to the fray by sending

398 G.A. Mantell, ‘Discovery of the Bones of the Iguanodon in a Quarry of Kentish Rag (a limestone belonging to the lower greensand), near Maidstone, Kent’, ENPJ, 1834, 17, pp. 200-202. 399 The well-known Iguanodon skeleton discovered at Maidstone lacked a skull. W.E. Swinton, ‘Gideon Mantell and the Maidstone Iguanodon’, Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London, 1951, 8, pp. 261-276 on p. 271. 400 C. Lyell, ‘Anniversary Address of the President’, PGSL, 1851, pp. xxv-lxxvi on p. lxv. 401 G.A. Mantell, ‘Memoir on a Portion of the Lower Jaw of the Iguanodon, and on the Remains of the Hylaeosaurus and other Saurians, discovered in the Strata of Tilgate Forest, in Sussex’ [18 February 1841], PTRSL, 1841, 131, pp. 131-151. 402 G.A. Mantell, ‘On the Fossil Remains of Turtles, discovered in the Chalk Formation of the South- east of England’ [20 May 1841], PTRSL, 1841, 131, pp. 153-158.

153 copies of these two papers “to friends in England, and to many savants in France”.403 Owen delivered his Plymouth lecture on land-based fossil reptiles on 2 August, 1841. In a recent analysis of this lecture, and its associated press reports, Torrens has pointed out two pertinent features of Owen’s address:404 · All newspaper reports indicated that Owen reviewed the land-based reptiles according to existing reptile classifications, and grouped them with lizards in the Lacertian Division of the Saurian Order. He did not name Dinosauria as a new Order at the BAAS meeting. · Owen agreed with Mantell’s size estimates of the Iguanodon, but considered Mantell’s 1825 name for the fossil reptile unsuitable and misleading.

Mantell responded to Owen’s criticism in the 28 August issue of the Literary Gazette, and in a reasoned manner, pointed out that the Iguanodon had been named because of the resemblance of its teeth to the modern-day iguana.405 Nevertheless, the Mantell-Owen conflict over the ‘taxonomic’ domain of land-based fossil reptiles now became an open and personally acrimonious issue.406 Owen’s final report407 was published in April, 1842, eight months after the Plymouth meeting. Torrens’s analysis408 reveals how Owen used this interval to make major revisions to his August lecture. One such change was to reduce the previous size estimates of the reptiles. More importantly, in a specimen observed in Saull’s Museum409 Owen had noticed that five sacral vertebrae of the Iguanodon were anchylosed, a characteristic known to be shared with the Megalosaurus. As a consequence, he deemed this and other distinguishing features “sufficient ground for establishing a distinct tribe or sub-order of Saurian Reptiles, for which I would propose the name of

403 GAM-PJ, entry 31 December 1841. 404 Torrens, op. cit. (note 389), pp. 175-190. 405 G.A. Mantell, ‘Fossil Reptiles’, Literary Gazette, 28 August 1841, pp. 556-557. 406 GAM to B. Silliman, 14 December 1841, quoted in Spokes, op. cit. (note 98), p. 133. 407 R. Owen, ‘Report on British Fossil Reptiles. Part II’, Report of the BAAS meeting held at Plymouth in 1841, 1842, pp. 60-204. 408 Torrens, op. cit. ( note 389). 409 William Saull (1784-1855) was a London wine merchant, radical socialist and geologist who opened his London Museum in 1833. His Iguanodon specimen came from the Isle of Wight. Torrens, op. cit. (note 389).

154 Dinosauria.”410 Rupke has summed up the situation in the following way: “By inventing the dinosaurs, coining the name and placing them in a taxonomic category of their own, Owen appropriated Mantell’s sensational monsters.”411 In effect, the ‘taxonomic’ domain of British fossil reptiles became Owen’s in 1842. Mantell acknowledged Owen’s report as a “very masterly paper”,412 but minimised Owen’s contributions to the field of fossil reptiles. Writing to Lyell eight years later, Mantell remarked:

In the report on British reptiles the only new fact in the osteology of the Iguanodon, stated by Owen is the construction of the sacrum which is peculiar O. supposes to Iguanodon, Megalosaurus, & Hylaeosaurus. O. showed the Ig. Sacrum consisted of 5 anchylosed vertebrae from a specimen in Saull’s collection: I since examined the same fossil & found the sacrum to consist of six vertebrae: I have figured it in Phil. Trans. Part II. 1849 pl. XXVI.413

Despite Owen’s entry to the field, Mantell did not relinquish his reptile investigations after Owen’s 1842 report. In 1848, a lower jaw with teeth of an Iguanodon was finally found at Cuckfield, Sussex, and given to Mantell. In his paper read to the Royal Society on 25 May 1848,414 Mantell was able to unequivocally confirm his previous claims concerning the herbivorous nature of the reptile.415 He had searched for such a fossil remain for 25 years. As a consequence of this paper, and of his earlier work on the Iguanodon, Lyell was able to advise Mantell on 30 November, 1849, that he had been awarded the Royal Medal of the Royal Society of London,416 despite vehement opposition from Owen. During the next two years Mantell completed three further papers on fossil reptiles for the Royal Society,417 one

410 Owen, op. cit. (note 407), p. 103. 411 N.A. Rupke, Richard Owen: Victorian Naturalist, Yale University Press, Yale, 1994, p. 134. 412 GAM to B. Silliman, 30 April 1842, quoted in Spokes, op. cit. (note 98), p. 135. 413 GAM to CL, 7 October 1850, APS Archives, Darwin-Lyell Correspondence, BD 25L. (Supp. Vol.-Letter 229). 414 G.A. Mantell, ‘On the Structure of the Jaws and Teeth of the Iguanodon’ [25 May 1848], PTRSL, 1848, 138, pp. 183-202. 415 Ibid., pp. 198-199. In this paper Mantell also proposed that the lower jaw described in his 1841 ‘Memoir on a Portion of the Lower Jaw of the Iguanodon’, belonged to a new, allied genus Regnosaurus Northamptoni. 416 CL to GAM, 30 November 1849, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 65. (Supp. Vol.-Letter 216). 417 G.A. Mantell,i‘Additional Observations on the Osteology of the Iguanodon and Hylaeosaurus’ [8 March 1849], PTRSL, 1849, 139, pp. 271-305.i‘On the Pelorosaurus; an undescribed gigantic terrestrial reptile whose remains are associated with those of the Iguanodon and other Saurians in the Strata of Tilgate Forest, in Sussex’, [14 February 1850], Phil. Trans, 1850, 140, pp. 379-390.i‘On a

155 of which described the Pelorosaurus, a previously unknown, gigantic, terrestrial reptile. Thus Mantell made a very significant contribution to the construction of knowledge about the nature, habits, and variety of the large land-based fossil reptiles of the Cretaceous period, despite the fact that he did not establish a domain in this field. Additionally, through his Museum, public lectures, and publications for the non-scientific market, Mantell played a major role in making the public aware of these extinct monsters. As a final point, Mantell’s fossil reptiles acquired by the British Museum provided a substantial base for further research. Cleevely and Chapman have summed up this aspect of Mantell’s collection on a quantitative basis:

Mantell’s contribution to the increase in knowledge and material that has survived in the [British] Museum collections amounts to: 59 turtle specimens; 9 pterosaur specimens; 9 crocodile specimens; 4 monosaur specimens; 155+ dinosaur remains (including teeth). The extensive series of dinosaur remains acquired through the purchases in 1838 and 1853, attributed to 9 genera and 14 different species418

Most of Mantell’s other geological publications during the 1840s were consequential, and also reflect his ongoing feud with Owen. Subjects in this category were fossil birds of both England419 and New Zealand,420 Belemnites,421 and finally, the race for priority between Mantell and Lyell’s Telerpeton and Owen’s Leptopleuron in 1852.422 The enmity between the two

Dorsal dermal Spine of the Hylaeosaurus, recently discovered in the Strata of Tilgate Forest’ [13 June 1850], PTRSL, 1850, 140, pp. 391-392. 418 Cleevely and Chapman, op. cit. (note 96), p. 334. 419 G.A. Mantell, ‘On the Fossil Remains of Birds in the Wealden Strata of the South-east of England’ [1 January 1846], QJGSL, 1846, 2, pp. 104-106. In this paper Mantell responded to Owen’s paper, ‘On the Supposed Fossil Bones of Birds from the Wealden’ [17 December 1845], QJGSL, 1846, 2, pp. 96-102, which claimed Mantell’s birds were Pterodactyles. 420 G.A.Mantell,i‘On the Fossil Remains of Birds collected in various parts of New Zealand by Mr Walter Mantell of Wellington’, QJGSL, 1848, 4, pp. 225-241.i‘Notice of the Remains of the Diornis and other Birds, and of Fossils and Rock-specimens, recently collected by Mr. Walter Mantell in the Middle Island of New Zealand; with Additional Notes on the Northern Island’, QJGSL, 1850, 6, pp. 319-343. 421 G.A. Mantell, ‘Observations on some Belemnites and other Fossil Remains of Cephalopoda, discovered by Mr. Reginald Neville Mantell, C.E. in the Oxford Clay near Trowbridge, in Wiltshire’, PTRSL, 1848, 138, pp. 171-181. In this paper Mantell presented evidence contravening Owen’s earlier interpretation of the remains of Belemnites and Belemnoteuthis. 422 An excellent account of this final feud between Owen and Mantell, besides a further illustration of Lyell’s anti-progressionist stance is given in M.J. Benton, ‘Progressionism in the 1850s: Lyell, Owen, Mantell and the Elgin fossil reptile Leptopleuron (Telerpeton)’, Archives of Natural History, 1972, 11, pp. 123-136.

156 men is also exhibited in Mantell’s last two books, A Pictorial Atlas of Fossil Remains423 and Petrifactions and Their Teachings.424 Both were major publications and completed when Mantell was in poor health and still conducting his declining medical practice. In summary, it can be stated that Mantell resuscitated his geological career during the last decade of his life. However, he was unable to fashion a new domain.

3.4.2 THE GEOLOGICAL WORK OF LYELL IN THE 1840s

In contrast to Mantell’s situation, the 1840s was a period of further consolidation for Lyell. Although his ‘causal’ domain had been soundly established during the previous decade, Lyell continued to reinforce his case for absolute actualism, as well as maintain his role as ‘the anthologizer and codifier of geological text-books’. As R. Silliman has observed, “he was ever in need of fresh material that, incorporated into the Principles of Geology or the Elements of Geology, justified new editions of these works and brought in new royalties”.425 During the 1840s and 1850s, Lyell’s lecture and geological visits to the United States of America provided the principal means to this end. Lyell and his wife visited the U.S.A. and Canada twice in the 1840s,426 and were on their third visit when Mantell died in November, 1852. Lyell’s output of geological publications was considerable during this decade. The sixth edition of his Principles of Geology was published in a revamped form in 1840,427 the seventh edition (one volume) in 1847, and the eighth in 1850. An enlarged, second edition of Elements of Geology came out

423 G.A. Mantell, A Pictorial Atlas of Fossil Remains consisting of coloured Illustrations selected from Parkinson’s ‘Organic Remains of a Former World’ and Artis’s ‘Antediluvian Phytology’ with descriptions, Bohn, London, 1850. On pp. 170-171 of this book Mantell again recounts Owen’s confusion between the Belemnite and Belemnoteuthis. 424 G.A. Mantell, Petrifactions and Their Teachings or A Hand-Book to the Gallery of Organic Remains of the British Museum, Bohn, London, 1851. Mantell criticized Owen’s professional conduct on p. 226 and on p. 489. 425 R.H. Silliman, ‘The Hamlet Affair: Charles Lyell and the North Americans’, Isis, 1995, 86, pp. 541-561 on p. 559. 426 On their first visit Lyell and his wife left England on 20 July 1841 and returned in August 1842. Background on this visit is given in CL to GAM, 29 October 1841, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 65, (Supp. Vol.-Letter 167). Their second visit was from September 1845 until June 1846. 427 In essence, all descriptive geology was transferred to the second edition of Elements of Geology.

157 in 1841, while two books describing his visits to the U.S.A. during the 1840s were published in 1845 and 1849 respectively.428 An indication of the relative importance to Lyell of his visits to North America is that 23 of his 38 papers published in the 1840s429 describe geological phenomena from that continent. Only six concerned specific British topics. Lyell’s geological investigations in the U.S.A. tended to follow a set pattern. In most cases he was accompanied by a local authority;430 his next step was to send a memoir or notice on the particular topic to the GSL for publication; in the final phase the phenomenon would be described in the forthcoming edition of his Principles or Elements, usually the latter. For example, during the inclusive period 1841 to 1847, Lyell published 19 papers or notices concerning aspects of North American geology. Twelve of these topics were subsequently described in the sixth edition (1865) of Elements of Geology,431 and two in the seventh edition of Principles of Geology.432 The four papers excluded were of a more general nature.433 Lyell benefited from his U.S.A. visits, but he also made some original contributions to the geological knowledge of that country. Dott has designated eight areas where Lyell made a significant contribution. These include: a demonstration of the trans-Atlantic uniformity of the Carboniferous coal-measures; the discovery, with Dawson, of Carboniferous

428 C. Lyell,iTravels in North America, in the Years 1841-42; With Geological Observations in the United States, Canada and Nova Scotia, 2 vols, Murray, London, 1845, andiA Second Visit to the United States of North America, 2 vols, Murray, London, 1849. 429 These 38 papers are not all listed in the Bibliography of this thesis but were identified in Catalogue of Scientific Papers (1800-1863) compiled and published by the Royal Society of London, 1870, 4, pp. 138-140. 430 For example, in his letter to Mantell of 29 October 1841, (Supp. Vol.-Letter 167), Lyell mentions visits where he was guided by B. Silliman and his son, James Hall of the New York Geological Survey, Dr. G. Morton, Dr. R. Harlin, and T. A. Conrad. 431 These topics tended to be distinctive and descriptive, for example:i‘On the Fossil Footprints of Birds and Impressions of Raindrops in the Valley of Connecticut’, PGSL, 1838-42, 3, p. 793, which was subsequently mentioned in Elements of Geology, 6 ed., pp. 793-796, andi‘On the Upright Fossil Trees Found at Different Levels in the Coal Strata of Cumberland, New Scotia’, PGSL, pp. 176-178. 432 These two topics concerned the causal examples of:i‘Memoir on the Recession of the Falls of Niagara’, PGSL, 1842, 3, pp. 595-602, andi‘On the Delta and Alluvial Deposits of the Mississippi, and other points in the Geology of North America, observed in the years 1846-46’, Report of the BAAS Meeting held at Southampton in 1846, London, 1847, pp. 117-119. 433 Examples of the more general topics excluded from Lyell’s geological text-books are:i‘On some Carboniferous and Older Rocks of Pennsylvania and New York’, PGSL, 1838-42, 3, p. 554, and i ‘On the Newer Deposits of the Southern States of North America’, QJGSL, 1846, 2, pp. 405-410.

158 reptiles in Nova Scotia; and the biogeographic homogeneity, between Europe and North America, of marine Palaezoic fossils.434 Although the scope of Lyell’s geological work during the 1840s was broad, few of his papers manifested the probing depth of his 1826 paper on the formation of freshwater marl in Forfarshire.435 As a general observation, Lyell’s investigations now fell into one of two categories: descriptions of new geological phenomena for inclusion in future editions of his Principles or Elements; and more pervasively, any palaeontological case that supported his anti-progressionist stance. Lyell’s anti-progressionist beliefs did not change during these years. An example of one aspect of his position is contained in the following extract from a previously unpublished letter to Mantell, written in 1850:

I have endeavoured as you know in many chapters of the Principles & in my works generally to explain why I take a different view. I believe that the last pair of Dodos was as capable if let alone by Man or the last Auroch so long as the Czar chose to protect them to repeople the globe as were the first pair & I believe it was the same with every other last pair from the beginning whether an uncongenial climate, or submergence of land by an earthquake, or conversion of sea into land, or the coming of a new species or any other cause organic or inorganic, mechanical or chemical, put a finishing stroke to the existence of a species. Your theory is Brochi's theory, Principles 7th. Edn. p. 641. which I have treated of – the physiological dying out of every species. The red man has an allotted time for his race dying out & it may be that the Small pox or some other epidemic may put the last finish to what the white man’s persecution has begun but the last pair of Indians will be naturally as fecund if unmolested as were Adam and Eve.436

A further example of Lyell’s inflexible, anti-progressionist stance, and also of his single-mindedness, is the ‘Telerpeton’ episode in 1851-52. Despite the fact that Mantell was in poor health and had other priorities, Lyell ‘bombarded’ him with 15 letters over a six-week interval that contained various requests and suggestions to complete a paper favourable to the anti-

434 R.H. Dott, Jr, ‘Lyell in America: His lectures, Field Work, and Mutual Influences, 1841-1853’, Earth Sciences History: Journal of the History of the Earth Sciences Society, 1996, 15, pp. 128-129. 435 Lyell, op. cit. (note 108). 436 CL to GAM, 3 March 1850, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 65. (Supp. Vol.-Letter 221).

159 progressionist argument.437 In fact, Lyell’s anti-progressionism exhibited the key hall-marks of a ‘modal’ domain – an idiosyncratic, geological viewpoint promoted from a position of authority and influence. Appropriately, the main themes of Lyell’s two Anniversary addresses during his second GSL presidency directly concerned these two geological fields, the ‘causal’ domain of absolute actualism, and the ‘modal’ domain of anti-progressionism. The theme of his 1850 address was the bearing of modern discoveries on the principles of geology;438 in his 1851 address, Lyell spoke against the palaeontological case for progressionism.439

3.4.3 THE NATURE OF THE GEOLOGICAL WORK COMPLETED BY THE OTHER IDENTIFIED GEOLOGISTS IN THE 1840s

The geologists whose work is reviewed here comprise the six geologists, besides Lyell, identified in the final screening list for the 1840- 1850 decade, namely, Buckland, De la Beche, Fitton, Murchison, Sedgwick and Whewell; the three others included on the penultimate list with Mantell, namely, Darwin, Egerton and Owen; and the two exceptions, Greenough, and Phillips.

(1) BUCKLAND

Buckland served a second term as GSL president from 1839 to 1841 and was a member of council for most of the decade. He also received the society’s Wollaston Medal in 1848. However, Buckland’s inclusion on the final list for this decade basically stems from his earlier geological work, and not from the further development of his joint-domain of the 1830s, progressionism. In fact, the influence of the English school of geology diminished considerably during the 1840s. At Oxford, the Tractarian Movement had crusaded successfully against liberal Anglicanism and historical geology since the mid-1830s.440 Moreover, within the senior ranks of the GSL the English school’s approach to geology had become

437 See CL to GAM, 27 November 1851 to 5 January 1852, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 65. (Supp. Vol.-Letters 252-268) 438 C. Lyell, ‘Anniversary Address of the President’, QJGSL, 1850, 6, pp. xxxii-lxvi. 439 C. Lyell, ‘Anniversary Address of the President’, QJGSL, 1851, 7, pp. xxv-lxxvi. 440 See Rupke, op. cit. (note 35), pp. 209-218.

160 the accepted, conventional norm, with the notable exception of Lyell. There was little, if any, further need to promulgate the overall concept. In 1845, Buckland was appointed Dean of Westminster by Sir Robert Peel. In this capacity he continued his geological investigations, but favoured those with a bias to economic geology and utility. One characteristic of his work did not change, Buckland’s propensity to generate “unexpected suggestions, curious enquiries, and novel kinds of evidence”.441 Topics of the 11 varied papers he completed during the 1840s included the agency of land snails in making excavations in compact limestone rocks,442 petrified track-wings of ambulatory fishes on sandstone,443 and the occurrence of nodules (called petrified potatoes) in Ireland.444 In essence, Buckland retained his status as an elite geologist during this last decade of his geological career because of his previous achievements and experience.

(2) WHEWELL

In general the comments made about Buckland in the 1840s, also apply to his colleague from the English school, Whewell, who served as GSL president from 1837 to 1839, but only served on the council for two years during the 1840s.445 Like Buckland, Whewell accepted a prestigious appointment during the decade, that of Master of Trinity College, Cambridge, in 1841. As just noted, the more relevant factor shared with Buckland was the effective redundancy of their joint ‘modal’ domain of the 1830s, the tenets of the English school of geology. During the latter half of the decade Whewell exhibited less interest in geology, but consolidated his much broader sphere of influence as a polymath and ‘scientific adjudicator’.

441 Obituary Notice of the Rev. William Buckland, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 1857, 8, on p. 267. 442 W. Buckland, ‘On the Agency of Land Snails in corroding and making deep excavations in compact Limestone rocks’, PGSL, 1842, 3, pp. 430-431. 443 W. Buckland, ‘On Ichthyopatolites or petrified track-wings of ambulatory Fishes upon Sandstone of the Coal Formation’, PGSL, 1843, 4, p. 204. 444 W. Buckland, ‘On the Occurrence of Nodules (called Petrified Potatoes) found on the shores of Lough Neagh, Ireland’, QJGSL, 1846, 2, p. 103. 445 Whewell served on the GSL council during the periods 1830-1833 and 1836-1842.

161 (3) SEDGWICK

During the 1840s Sedgwick was not able to consolidate his tentatively established ‘taxonomic’ domain of the Cambrian System. In fact Murchison, during 1841-1842, came close to annexing Sedgwick’s Cambrian System and incorporating it within his Silurian domain. During these years Sedgwick had few supporters who accepted the validity of his claimed domain of Cambrian strata. In several key respects Sedgwick’s geological approach did not help his cause. Apart from his tardiness in publishing, Sedgwick failed to describe a characteristic Cambrian fauna, in marked contrast to Murchison who effectively claimed all fossils below the newly established Devonian system as Silurian. Sedgwick, in fact, commented that Murchison had effectively defined the Silurian as “fossiliferous Greywacke”.446 But, as noted by Berry: “The Cambrian Period, as Sedgwick thought of it, was a descriptive unit and so could not be recognised outside of its type area”.447 In 1843, Sedgwick actually abandoned the name Cambrian and suggested the compromise term ‘Protozoic’ for the strata below the Upper Silurian,448 but he rescinded this decision in 1846. Despite this latter change of mind, Lyell’s seventh edition of Principles of Geology, printed in 1847, contained four references to Silurian rocks,449 but the word Cambrian was not mentioned. Furthermore, when Sedgwick was presented with the Wollaston Medal by Lyell in 1851 for “his original researches in developing the Geological Structure of the British Isles, the Alps, and the Rhenish Provinces”,450 there was no specific mention of the Cambrian System. In short, the situation was far from resolved by the end of the decade, and the status of Sedgwick’s Cambrian domain remained at best, tentative. In particular, it lacked the authority of a recognised distinctive fossil assemblage. The final solution to the dispute was not suggested until 1879, when Lapworth, following the tripartite Continental division of J. Barrande in Bohemia, created a tripartite division of the Lower

446 Clark and Hughes, op. cit. (note 188), vol. 2, p. 539. 447 W.B.N. Berry, Growth of a Prehistoric Time Scale: Based on Organic Evolution, Freeman, San Francisco, 1968, on p. 87. 448 A. Sedgwick, ‘Outline of the Geological Structure of North Wales’, PGSL, 1843, 4, p. 221; also quoted in Secord, Controversy in Victorian geology, 1986, p. 139. 449 Lyell, Principles of Geology, 7th ed., 1847, pp. 116, 156, 171 and 180. 450 C. Lyell, ‘Award of the Wollaston Medal and Donation Fund’, PGSL, 1851, 7, pp. xix-xx.

162 Palaezoic, allocating the lower part of Murchison’s Silurian and the upper part of Sedgwick’s Cambrian to the new System: the Ordovician.451

(4) MURCHISON

Although the stratigraphic scope of the Silurian System, as envisaged by Murchison during the 1840s, was considerably diminished 30 years later, his domain was effectively accepted from the time The Silurian System was published in 1839. Because of his correlative use of fossils, Murchison was able to extend his domain to Europe, Russia, North America, Australia and even the Falkland Islands. Unlike Sedgwick, Murchison was able to pronounce:

The simple question, then, which every practical geologist has long ago answered in the negative, is this, Was the Cambrian system ever so defined, that a competent person going into an uninvestigated country could determine if it existed there? That it was never so characterized is demonstrated by the successive publications of Professor Sedgwick himself,….For whenever well- known Lower Silurian fossils occurred in such countries, the tracts so typified have necessarily been called Silurian.452

The overseas extension of Murchison’s Silurian domain became an aspect of English scientific colonisation, and a source of pride. Secord quotes Whewell as follows: “I rejoice to hear of your success in Silurianizing the nations. One of our toasts at the geological ought to be ‘the Silurian System all over the world’.”453 The process reached its apotheosis in 1849, when Murchison was hailed ‘King-of-Siluria’ by the Bishop of Oxford, following a field excursion to Dudley.454

451 See Hallam, op. cit. (note 38), 1989, pp. 80-83. 452 R.I. Murchison, ‘On the Meaning of the term “Silurian System” as adopted by Geologists in various countries during the last ten years’, QJGSL, 1852, 1, p. 176. 453 W. Whewell to R.I. Murchison, [dated 1839], Murchison mss, quoted in Secord, op. cit. (note 22), p. 81. 454 See H.B. Woodward, op. cit. (note 29), p.169. D.R. Oldroyd also quotes this example in The Highlands Controversy: Constructing Geological Knowledge through Fieldwork in Nineteenth- Century Britain, Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1990, p. 31.

163 Murchison also established another geological system, the Permian, following a visit to Russia in 1841. In all, he published 41 scientific papers455 and a major book456 during the decade. Murchison’s geological work during the first half of the nineteenth century highlights the proprietorial and self-aggrandisement aspects of ‘taxonomic’ domains in particular. Nevertheless, his dispute with Sedgwick did lead to the construction of geological knowledge. The utility and importance of using fossils for national and international correlative purposes was confirmed, and a better understanding of the distinctive characteristics of a new geological system was developed.

(5) FITTON

Fitton was 60 years of age in 1840 and it is not surprising that his geological investigations continued to be confined to his minor, but long established statigraphic domain, the succession of strata between the Upper Jurassic and Lower Cretaceous in the south of England. His four geological publications during the decade were again confined to this stratigraphic zone,457 but dealt with a significant new discovery. Fitton was able to demonstrate the existence of a fossiliferous marine clay, the Atherfield Clay, at the base of the Lower Greensand that had previously been included in the underlying, freshwater Wealden Clay.

(6) DE LA BECHE

The review of De la Beche’s career during the 1830s concluded that by 1839 he was well positioned in his capacity as director of the Geological Survey

455 These publications are not listed in the Bibliography of this thesis. They are listed in the Catalogue of Scientific Papers (1800-1863) compiled and published by the Royal Society of London, vol. 4, 1870, pp. 548-543. 456 R.I. Murchison, E. de Verneuil, and Count von Keyserling, The Geology of Russia in Europe and the Ural Mountains, 2 vols, Murray, London, 1846. 457 W.H. Fitton,i‘Observations on part of the Section of the Lower Greensand at Atherfield, on the coast of the Isle of Wight’ [1843], PGSL, 1846, 4, pp. 198-203.i‘Comparative Remarks on the Lower Greensand of Kent and the Isle of Wight’ [1843], PGSL, 1846, 4, pp. 208-210.i ‘Comparative Remarks on the Sections below the Chalk on the coast near Hythe, in Kent, and Atherfield, in the Isle of Wight’, QJGSL, 1845, 1, pp. 179-189.i ‘A Stratigraphical Account of the Section from Atherfield to Rocken-End in the Isle of Wight’, QJGSL, 1846, 2, pp. 55-56 and 1847, 3, pp. 289-328.

164 and the Museum of Practical Geology to fashion a new ‘modal’ domain. Before then, De la Beche did not have staff at these institutions to direct or influence. This situation changed significantly in the 1840s; nine officers were employed by the Geological Survey in 1845, and thirteen in 1850, while staff at the Museum of Practical Geology increased from one chemist and a curator in 1845 to three chemists and curator by 1850. Fossil collectors, some technical staff and temporary employees are excluded from these numbers.458 Thus, by the middle of the decade De la Beche had established a major power-base in British geological circles. Moreover, the characteristics of the Geological Survey were unique in English science at that time. Secord has highlighted the nature of this key development:

it represented the efforts of a group of researchers gathered together to pursue common objectives. The Geological Survey departed strikingly from a tradition that had emphasized individuals working alone or in voluntary association.459

Previous ‘modal’ domains, such as Buckland’s English school of geology, were loose associations of ‘gentleman and clergyman-specialists’ pursuing interlinked, but essentially independent investigations. De la Beche’s domain was different. He provided hierarchical and undisputed leadership to a carefully selected group of able professionals – geologists, curators, chemists and palaeontologists, united in Horner’s words “for the accomplishment of a great work, not surpassed…by any similar establishment in any other country”.460 During the Geological Survey’s first decade, its activities focused on economic geology and associated detailed mapping of south-west England and southern Wales. Secord has made a convincing case that in carrying out and directing this work De la Beche had a distinctive agenda: a research school centred on palaeoecology that exhibited the following characteristics and areas of emphasis:461

458 The number of these employees was obtained from Secord, op. cit. (note 350), p. 228. 459 Ibid., p. 223. 460 L. Horner, ‘Anniversary address of the President’, QJGSL, 1847, 3, on p. xxxi. Also quoted in ibid., p. 223. 461 Secord, op. cit. (note 350), pp. 241-247.

165 · Palaeoecological interpretations and environmental reconstructions were applied to the older rocks below the Tertiary. Buckland’s previous work in this area tended to focus on more recent strata. · Emphasis was placed on reconstructing the characteristics of specific places rather than on more general ‘lost worlds’. · Stratigraphic mapping was carried out with unprecedented accuracy and detail (De la Beche’s field-work had displayed this characteristic). · Past reconstructions of geological phenomena were carried out utilising a wide range of technical and scientific skills.

In order to ensure that this overall system was implemented in the field, De la Beche issued detailed directives in his ‘Instructions for the Local Directors of the Geological Surveys of Great Britain & Ireland’.462 As a general summation, De la Beche set a new bench-mark in regard to the efficacy of power-based, ‘modal’ domains during the 1840s.

(7) GREENOUGH

Greenough continued his record term as a member of the GSL council throughout the 1840s,463 and also served on the main council of BAAS from 1840 until 1848. He therefore maintained his accustomed geological positions of influence. However, he did not make any presidential addresses during this period, or publish any geological papers, which makes it difficult to assess any changes in the status of his ‘modal’ domain of geological scepticism. Records from the GSL meeting on 4 November 1840, when glaciation was discussed, reveal that Greenough exhibited considerable scepticism on this major issue. According to Woodward, Greenough regarded Agassiz’s theory as “the climax of absurdity in geological opinions”.464 His attitude to new geological ideas therefore appears to have changed little. It is extremely difficult, though, to determine the extent of a probable decline in the influence of his expounded approach throughout the decade.

462 Ibid., p. 248. 463 Greenough served on the original GSL committee from 1807 to 1810 and subsequently served as a member of council from 1810 until 1855. Woodward, op. cit. (note 29), p. 302. 464 Ibid., p. 140.

166 (8) PHILLIPS

In 1838 De la Beche enlisted Phillips’ voluntary assistance to produce a report on the fossils of Devon and Cornwall to complement and support his forthcoming Survey report on the geology of these counties.465 His participation in this project was to lead to new career opportunities. In 1840 Phillips joined the Geological Survey as a professional palaentologist. Hitherto, he would have been best described as a field- geologist and stratigrapher. Phillips’ report on the Palaeozoic fossils of the south-west counties was published in 1841.466 In essence, this report described and illustrated 275 species of fossil collected by Phillips and local collectors, a number he considered sufficient for “a partial removal of the veil which has so long obscured the age and affinities of the strata of Devon and Cornwall”.467 On a broader front, the report re-introduced his 1840 concept of three major geological eras, the Palaeozoic, Mesozoic and Cainozoic, based on “three great systems of organic life, characterizeable and recognizable by the prevalence of different species, genera, families”.468 Phillips also used his distinctive, quantitative methodology for analysing the fossils found in the different Palaeozoic systems of the three counties. As a final point, Phillips would have realised that with the production of his 1841 report, combined with his appointment to the first palaeontological position in the now-expanding Geological Survey, he was in a strategic position to establish a major ‘taxonomic’ domain, such as British Palaeozoic fossils, and to assume control over the Survey’s palaeontological investigations. Events did not work out this way. In 1844 Phillips accepted the position of Professor of Geology, Trinity College, Dublin, but arranging matters so that he was free to spend most of the year with the Geological Survey. However, Edward Forbes was appointed to superintend the

465 De la Beche, op. cit. (note 347). 466 J. Phillips, Figure and Descriptions of the Palaeozoic Fossils of Cornwall, Devon and West Somerset; Observed in the Course of the Ordnance Geological Survey of that District, Longman, London, 1841. 467 Ibid., preface, on pp. v-xii. Quoted in Rudwick, op. cit. (note 1), p. 372. 468 Ibid., pp. 159-160. Phillips first introduced the terms ‘Mesozoic’ and ‘Kainozoic’ in The Penny Cyclopedia of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge, Charles Knight, London, 1840, 17, pp. 153-154.

167 Survey’s palaeontological activities in the same year. Phillips subsequently resigned his Dublin academic position in 1845 and resumed regional geological investigations with the Survey, based in York. In 1848 he completed his next major work, The Malvern Hills compared with the Palaeozoic districts of Amberley, Woolhope, May Hill, Tortworth and Usk.469 Although this publication continued to exhibit Phillips’s palaeoecological and quantitative approach to palaeontological investigations, it was basically a comprehensive, regional geological study.470 Phillips had returned to his base geological domain.

(9) DARWIN

During the first half of the decade Darwin completed the trilogy of geological books471 that consolidated his previously established, ‘causal’ domain of crustal mobility. Their publication marked the conclusion of his geological investigations during the voyage of H.M.S. Beagle. Darwin also evinced interest in another aspect of causal geology during the 1840s, glaciation, and in 1848 he completed a paper explaining how ice-bergs could account for the transport of boulders to higher levels.472 Darwin’s last geological paper,473 published in 1855, also concerned aspects of glaciation. By this time, however, Darwin’s influence as a causal geologist had diminished for several reasons474 – his move to Kent in 1842, the implausibility of his interpretation of the Glen Roy ‘roads’, and his changed scientific interests, from geology to biology.

469 J. Phillips, The Malvern Hills compared with the Palaeozoic districts of Amberley, Woolhope, May Hill, Tortworth and Usk, Memoir of the Geological Survey, 2, 1848. 470 Challinor has described Phillips’ Malvern Hills Memoir as: “one of those fundamental works which at once establish our knowledge of a region and which have never been superseded, though many new facts are subsequently recorded”, The History of British Geology: A Bibliographical Study, David and Charles, Newton Abbot, 1971 p. 119. 471 C. Darwin,iThe Structure and Distribution of Coral Reefs, Smith and Elder, London, 1842.i Geological Observations on the Volcanic Islands Visited During the Voyage of H.M.S. Beagle, Smith and Elder, London, 1844.iGeological Observations in South America, Smith and Elder, London, 1846. 472 C. Darwin, ‘On the Transportal of Erratic Boulders from a lower to a higher level’, QJGSL, 1848, 4, pp. 315-323. 473 C. Darwin, ‘On the Power of Icebergs to make rectilinear uniformly-directed Grooves across a submarine undulatory Surface’, Philosophical Magazine, 1855, 10, pp. 96-98. 474 Rudwick, op. cit. (note 374), p. 194.

168 (10) EGERTON

In several respects Egerton differed from the other ‘gentleman-specialists’ identified in the final and penultimate screening lists. He was the only aristocrat in a total of 13 members of council included in these lists, and his geological interests were mainly confined to the collection and classification of fossil fish. Thirteen of the fifteen scientific papers he published during the 1840s were concerned with this taxonomic field. For the most part these papers are straightforward, descriptive and classificatory and frequently reliant on Agassiz’s Poissons Fossiles.475 Egerton was not an innovator and his taxonomic domain can be regarded as minor. Egerton’s collection of fossil fishes was acquired by the British Museum following his death in 1881.

(11) OWEN

The most pertinent aspects of Owen’s palaeontological investigations during the 1840s have been discussed in the section concerning Mantell’s work during this period. In summary, Owen claimed the vacant taxonomic domain of British fossil reptiles in 1842 when he submitted his Part II BAAS Report on British Fossil Reptiles, in which he established a new sub-order of saurian reptiles, the Dinosauria.

3.4.4 REVIEW OF THE GEOLOGICAL WORK COMPLETED BY THE IDENTIFIED GEOLOGISTS IN THE 1840s

With the exception of Mantell, all identified geologists either established, consolidated or retained a geological domain during the 1840s, as shown on the following page.

475 For example , in his paper ‘On the Remains of Fishes found by Mr. Kaye and Mr. Cuncliffe in the Pondicherry Beds’, QJGSL, 1845, 1, pp. 164-171, Egerton commented that he identified these fish by comparing them with analogous forms from other localities and with the figures and descriptions provided by Agassiz.

169 TABLE 3.2 - DOMAINS ESTABLISHED BY THE IDENTIFIED GEOLOGISTS IN THE 1840s

Legend

MAJOR TENTATIVE OR MINOR IDENTIFIED NO MAJOR DOMAIN DOMAIN DOMAIN DOMAIN DOMAIN (tentative, joint or declining)

IDENTIFIED ON PENULTIMATE ON FINAL SCREENING EXCLUSIONS BUT NOT FINAL LIST LIST

GREENOUGH DARWIN BUCKLAND Modal Domain Causal Domain Joint Modal Domain (Scepticism) (Crustal Mobility) (English-School)

PHILLIPS EGERTON DE LA BECHE Taxonomic Domain Taxonomic Domain Modal Domain (Regional Geology) (Fossil Fish) (Geological Survey)

MANTELL FITTON No Domain Taxonomic Domain (Chalk - Oolite)

OWEN LYELL Taxonomic Domain Causal Domain (British Fossil Reptiles) (Absolute actualism)

MURCHISON Taxonomic Domain (Silurian and Devonian Systems)

SEDGWICK Taxonomic and Joint Modal Domain (Cambrian System and English school)

WHEWELL Joint Modal Domain (English school)

170 For most of the 13 selected geologists, the 1840s was a period for consolidating their identified or established domains. Geologists in this category were De la Beche, Fitton, Lyell, Murchison, Owen, Egerton, and, to a lesser extent, Darwin. Sedgwick tried to substantiate his tentatively established Cambrian domain, but with only partial success. On the other hand, the ‘modal’ domains of Buckland, Whewell and Greenough declined in influence during the decade. In the case of the former two ‘clergyman- specialists’, the English school’s approach to geology was simply incorporated into mainstream English geology. The youngest of the identified geologists, Phillips, had ambitions of establishing a major new domain in Palaeozoic palaeontology, but was thwarted by the appointment of E. Forbes to the Geological Survey in 1844. Mantell stands out as the exception. He was the only identified member of council who had not established a geological domain by the end of the decade. By the time he was able to re-enter the field of British fossil reptiles in the early 1840s, it was too late. Owen had seized the opportunity. Nevertheless, Mantell’s range of palaeontological investigations throughout the decade was remarkable.

3.5 CONCLUSIONS

All members of council who were identified in the final screening list were successful in establishing a geological domain. Six of the seven members of this selected elite established a major domain, either individually or jointly. Fitton was the only member whose domain was in the minor category. Apart from the notable exception of Mantell, and the anomalous case of Wollaston,476 all members of council included in the penultimate, but not final lists, also established a domain, Egerton’s being categorised as minor. The two exceptions, Greenough and Phillips, who were not included in the final screening lists because of their respective failure to achieve the stipulated number of publications or required council service, both established major domains. The degree of correspondence between the geologists identified in the final screening lists of the previous chapter, and the extent to which they

476 The non-geologist Wollaston was the only inclusion in the penultimate list for the period 1820 to 1830. He can be regarded as representative of an earlier period in the history of the GSL.

171 were successful in establishing geological domains, is illustrated below for each of the three decades examined.

TABLE 3.3 SUMMARY OF DOMAINS ESTABLISHED BY THE IDENTIFIED GEOLOGISTS

MAJOR TENTATIVE OR MINOR IDENTIFIED NO MAJOR DOMAIN DOMAIN DOMAIN DOMAIN DOMAIN (tentative, joint or declining)

1820 - 1830

OTHERS PENULTIMATE BUT FINAL ( established domains) NOT FINAL LIST SCREENING LIST CONYBEARE WOLLASTON BUCKLAND FITTON

GREENOUGH

MANTELL

1830 - 1840

OTHERS PENULTIMATE BUT FINAL SCREENING (established domains) NOT FINAL LIST LIST DARWIN CONYBEARE BUCKLAND FITTON DE LA BECHE LYELL GREENOUGH MURCHISON

PHILLIPS SEDGWICK

WHEWELL

1840 - 1850

OTHERS PENULTIMATE BUT FINAL SCREENING (established domains) NOT FINAL LIST LIST GREENOUGH DARWIN BUCKLAND PHILLIPS EGERTON DE LA BECHE MANTELL FITTON

OWEN LYELL

MURCHISON

SEDGWICK

WHEWELL

172 These results indicate a good but not exceptional degree of correspondence between members who established a geological domain and those included on the final and penultimate screening lists. It is concluded that the screening criteria adopted in the previous chapter provide a rational, preliminary basis for distinguishing members of the geological elite. However, the screening criteria cannot be applied too rigidly. Flexibility and judgement are required to ensure that members who greatly exceed the requirements for one of the criteria, but fall short in regard to another, are taken into account. The above summary tables also indicate certain trends concerning the identification and establishment of geological domains during the three decades. In many respects these trends are best illustrated by the case- histories of Mantell and Lyell. During the 1820s relatively few domains were established. Greenough, Buckland and Conybeare fashioned major ‘modal’ domains, while Fitton and Mantell established minor taxonomic domains. Neither Fitton nor Mantell exploited ‘virgin territory’. Mantell’s domain, the fossils of Sussex, was too extensive in palaeontological scope, and too limited geographically, to be developed other than in the short term. Lyell was aware of these limitations and in 1829 outlined a strategic plan for Mantell to take-over the vacant domain of British fossil fish and reptiles. By 1829 Lyell had clearly identified his own future domain. The 1830s can be regarded as a decade of geological achievement, with Murchison being the classic exemplar. The number of geologists with either joint or individual major domains increased from three to nine. Additionally, Fitton maintained his minor stratigraphic domain, and by the end of the decade De la Beche was ready to establish a new domain within the Geological Survey, and Owen was about to seize the vacant ‘taxonomic’ domain of British fossil reptiles. Mantell stands out as the solitary exception. Although the pattern of the 1830s is similar to that of the 1840s, the key characteristic of the latter decade is consolidation rather than the exploitation of new domains. Lyell was perfectly positioned during the 1840s to consolidate both his domain and pattern of geological investigation. Mantell was again the exception. Although he investigated a wide range of

173 palaeontological subjects during this period, Mantell did not identify, let alone fashion, a new domain. The critical finding in this chapter is that during the period 1820 to 1850 any aspirant to elite status in English geology needed to establish a geological domain. Mantell did not achieve this goal and in a simplistic, but still basic sense, this fact accounts for his perceived failure. However such an explanation does not provide a meaningful understanding of his career. Several pertinent points have been highlighted in this and the previous chapter. Mantell was the most singular provincial member of the GSL council during the first half of the nineteenth century. He was the only one dependant on non-geological activities for his livelihood. These and other germane factors related to positioning are examined in the next chapter.

174