INFORMATION TO USERS

This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted.

The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction.

1. The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity.

2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame.

3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete.

4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and specific pages you wish reproduced.

5. PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as received.

Xerox University Microfiims 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor. Michigan 48106 >' 1 74-24,299 |

BOEKENKAMP, Richard Paul, 1929- GEOLOGICAL EDUCATION IN THE UNITED STATES 4 DURING THE LATE NINETEENTH CENTURY. |

The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1974 | Education, sciences

[ University Microfilms, A XEROXCompany, Ann Arbor, Michigan

THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED. GEOLOGICAL EDUCATION IN THE UNITED STATES

DURING THE LATE NINETEENTH CENTURY

DISSERTATION

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate

School of The Ohio State University

By

Richard Paul Boekenkamp, B.S., M.S.

*****

The Ohio State University

1974

Reading Committee: Approved by

Dr. Robert B. Sutton Dr. Robert L. Bates Dr. Victor J. Mayer

College of Education ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This book is in part about great teachers. The writer owes a deep debt of gratitude to his adviser, a great teacher - Dr. Robert B. Sutton. His unusual ability in combining a notable intellect, extreme patience and perseverance far beyond the expected, an incomparable sense of humor coupled with a masterful use of examples, stories, illustrations that are managed skillfully to clarify and instruct, insight into the nature and relationships of problems be they historical, educational, scientific, high standards of scholarship, and a genuine concern for his fellowman as students and human beings is, indeed, rare and is to be cherished.

Special recognition is due Dr. Robert L. Bates and Dr. Victor J. Mayer for their demonstrated interest in the project and their helpful assistance with constructive advice and criticism. This study would never have been completed had it not been for the efforts of Professors

Sutton, Bates and Mayer.

Deep appreciation is extended to Professor Aurele

La Rocque of the Department of Geology at The Ohio State

University whose special interest in and enthusiasm for

ii the History of Science contributed in great part to the writer's selection of this topic. He kindly made

available for use the notes on Dr. Frederic W. Simonds's

lectures on geology during the late 1800's, a work with which Dr. La Rocque has plans for an in-depth study at a

later date.

Kind remembrance is made of the late Professor

Earl W. Anderson who accepted the responsibility for

guidance and directing the writer's graduate program in

its early stages.

The Administration and many colleagues at Widener

College, former associates at Franklin and Marshall College

and The Episcopal Academy have contributed, in their own way, by encouragement and interest in the success of this

study.

Sincere appreciation is extended also to the many respondents to the questionnaires, librarians and

archivists at Widener College and The Ohio State

University and others, some of whom appear in the

Bibliography, for more than generous professional

assistance with a number of questions and problems

characteristic of this type of research.

Many thanks are due the typist, Mrs. Elizabeth A.

McGonigle who exercised both care in the preparation of

the dissertation, and who took more than usual interest

in its progress throughout the years. iii Finally, lasting appreciation to Marion and

Albert, my parents, for they understood and cared - in their "loving kindness they met me at every corner."

IV VITA

August 3, 1929.... Born - Ridley Park, Pennsylvania

1950...... B.S., Franklin and Marshall College, Lancaster, Pa. Major - Geology; Minor - Chemistry

1953-5 4 ...... Rotary Foundation Fellowship for Advanced Study. Academic Year. University of Glasgow, Scotland

1954-6 5 ...... Head, Science Department; Director of Guidance, The Episcopal Academy, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

1963...... M.S., Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, Thesis: "The Stratigraphy of the Sherburne Member (Genesee Formation) of the Cayuga Trough, Central New York" Major - Geology; Minor - Ecology

1964-196 5 ...... Teaching Assistant, Department of Geology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio

1965-Presen t ..... Assistant Professor, Biology and Earth Science, Widener College, Chester, Pennsylvania

FIELDS OF STUDY

HIGHER EDUCATION: Dr. Earl W. Anderson (Administration); Dr. Collins W. Burnett (Student Personnel); Dr. Everett J. Kircher (Philosophy); Dr. Robert B. Sutton (History of Education, Comparative Education)

GEOLOGY: Dr. Robert L. Bates (Adviser); Dr. Earle R. Caley (History of Chemistry); Dr. Richard P. Goldthwait (Polar and Alpine Studies); Dr. Aurele LaRocque (Paleoecology, History of Geology); Dr. James M. Schopf (Paleobotany); Dr. Edmund M. Spieker (Stratigraphy- Sedimentation, History of Science) V TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...... ü

VITA...... V

LIST OF TABLES...... viii

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS...... ix

INTRODUCTION...... 1

Chapter

I. SCIENCE AND GEOLOGY IN AMERICAN COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES DURING THE NINETEENTH CENTURY...... 9

II. FORCES AND EVENTS CONTRIBUTING TO AN AWAKENING OF INSTRUCTION IN THE EARTH SCIENCES IN THE 1800's...... 47

III. SELECTED MAJOR INSTITUTIONS TYPIFYING LATE NINETEENTH CENTURY INSTRUCTION IN THE EARTH SCIENCES...... 8 6

Birthplace of Geological Instruction in America - Yale University Founded and Cradled by a Geologist - Massachusetts Institute of Technology A New Giant in the Midwest - The University of Chicago

IV. GEOLOGICAL EDUCATION IN THE SMALLER COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES...... 121

"Piety and Intellect" - Amherst College More Modest Beginnings - Cornell College, Iowa State University of Science and Technology, Lawrence University, Wittenberg University, Franklin and Marshall College

V. CONCLUSION...... 145

VX APPENDIX Page

A. Questionnaire...... 1 5 3

B. Manual of Geology, J.D. Dana ...... 156

C. Henry Augustus Ward Papers...... 160

BIBLIOGRAPHY AND OTHER SOURCES

A. Books and Similar Materials...... 161

B. Selected Questionnaires, Correspondence and Other Communications Useful in This study «...... 178

vxi LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Publication Rate of Articles on North American Geology ...... 15

2. Discipline Specialities with the Number of Degrees Granted in Each Category ...... 69

3. Summary of Statistics of Colleges in Which Geology is Taught (1893-1894)...... 74

4. Number of Colleges Beginning the Subject of Geology in Different Years from 1845-1895 .... 75

5. Lists of the Presidents of Colleges Who Taught Geology, Name of College, and the Branches Taught by Each ...... 76

6 . Ladies Teaching Geology in Colleges in the United States...... 76

V l l l LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure Page

1. Classification of Geologic Processes...... 29

2. Classification of Geology...... 30

3. Graph Showing Date of Admission of Each State and Periods of Active State Geological Surveys to 1900...... 38

4. Instruction of Geology at Yale 1802-1952..... 89

Plate

I. Title Page, Professor Simonds's Lectures..... g2

II. Sample Page, Professor Simond's Lectures..... 63

XX INTRODUCTION

This study is a history. It deals in part with the history of geology, but it does not treat of geology

specifically as a discipline. Its purpose is to

investigate and characterize the state of geological education in institutions of higher learning in the United

States during the formative period of the American university, the late nineteenth century.

The last quarter of the nineteenth century has been generally recognized by historians as a distinct and

important era in the development of modern America (cf.

Lurie, 1964, p. 6 8 8 ), whatever may be the aspect of history which is under consideration. In higher education it is quite proper to focus on this period, for it was in these years, as Veysey (1965) has shown, that the American university emerged. This was the time when the influence of German scholarship was most pronounced, when many separate disciplines came into their own, when the new land-grant colleges proliferated, and when the university population increased enormously in response to the needs of national expansion and economic growth.

The number of colleges and universities which 2 offered instruction in geology increased greatly through the decades after the Civil War (Hopkins, 1896), most especially from 1885 on, and at many institutions, as their catalogs reveal, the breadth and specificity of course offerings in geology sharply increased also. The

Geological Society of America met first in 1888, midway in the quarter century being studied. Three new journals devoted to reporting the progress of geology were founded within four years of that date.

If the men who were busy teaching geology and expanding the boundaries of our knowledge of the field in the '80s and '90s had either the time or a stronger inclination to write about their teaching and the materials and methods they used, then it would be relatively easy to learn what they conceived to be the nature and challenges of geological education. A few did write a little on these topics, but most of what can now be learned about the teaching of geology nearly a century ago must be deduced or extrapolated from institutional catalogs, from widely-used textbooks and similar indirect indicators and secondary sources. Hence the study, although not intended to be a history of a discipline but of the teaching of it, is forced toward sources which treat the history of the discipline.

The problems of writing a history of instruction in a discipline have already been encountered by a number 3 of other authors, who have had varying degrees of success in coping with these problems: Cajori, who wrote on mathematics education in the United States (1890), ' '

Handschin, the teaching of modern languages (1913), True, a history of agricultural education (1929), Hollister, the development of Biology instruction (1939), O'Connor, the beginnings of academic economics (1944), and Morris, on the rise and decline of geography at Harvard University

(1962) .

Rudolph (1965, p. 503) has well stated the challenge which faces all who may essay histories of their respective fields of learning:

Histories of particular academic disciplines require a peculiar combination of expertness in the subject of investigation as well as an aptness for historical research. This combination has seldom been achieved...

If we add to this warning, the additional burden, in the present instance, of requisite understanding of education as well, the problems involved in this kind of study readily become apparent. The encouragement of fellow geologists in many institutions, who added to the historical information requested of them strong exhortations to press forward with this study and said how they themselves hoped eventually to write about or update the history of geological instruction in their own institutions, gave added impetus towards meeting and overcoming these difficulties. 4

The first steps in the study were to circulate questionnaires to geology department chairmen at 139 institutions with established departments in the earth sciences as indicated in the 1964 edition of the Directory of Geoscience Departments, and to assemble pertinent printed materials found in book form or in journals. The historical information returned in the questionnaires (See

Appendix A) extended over many decades but reinforced two initial decisions:

1 . that the study, as remarked, ought to center on the

last quarter of the nineteenth century;

2 . that intensive study of geological instruction in

several selected institutions ought to produce a

clearer picture of what was being taught, how it

was being taught, and for what reasons, than could

be revealed by a less searching study of many

institutions.

The choice of institutions to be studied in depth was, in some instances, influenced by the completeness of material available. The choice was guided even more by the need to present as detailed and balanced a response as is possible to these questions:

1. What was happening in the United States in

geological education during the late nineteenth

century?

2. Where and how were these institutional foundations 5 being laid?

3. To whom should just credit go for insight,

understanding and perseverance in "passing on"

their own knowledge and delight in the study of the

earth?

In seeking answers to these major questions among

the data collected, pertinence of the ideas to our present

instructional practices should influence us, and also the

necessity to answer these questions not only with respect

to larger universities but also with respect to two sorts

of smaller institutions. Included in these categories

are those institutions which had already a strong emphasis

on geology and those which were offering limited studies

in geology, but came to be recognized in later years as

quite strong. These concerns can be expressed as two

additional questions:

4. What instructional practices in the late nineteenth

century can be discerned as forerunners of present

practices in geological instruction?

5- What similarities and diversities, if any, existed

amongst the categories of institutions, at this

time, in their approaches to the teaching of

geology?

The institutions to be studied can be grouped in the following broad divisions:

1. Selected major universities granting the Ph.D. at 6

this time, implying established undergraduate

programs - e.g. institutions such as Harvard

University, Yale University, University of Chicago,

Massachusetts Institute of Technology, University

of California (Berkeley), Johns Hopkins University,

Ohio State University, University of Michigan.

2. Selected institutions, not offering the doctorate,

but evidencing good exposure to geological studies -

e.g. Amherst College, Dartmouth College, Wesleyan

University of Connecticut.

3. Selected smaller colleges and universities where

some attention was given to geological instruction

laying the foundations for growth and recognition

in the 1900's. - e.g. these include the "one-two

course colleges."

From each of these categories institutions were chosen which typify late nineteenth-century geological instruction in the colleges and universities of the United

States, with the following constraints in mind:

A. For institutions selected in the first and second

divisions, there must have been present at least

one influential geologist-educator, that is to say,

someone who was both a distinguished geologist and

a distinguished teacher or else wrote on geological

education. 7

B. The institutions selected in each division must

differ somewhat from one another in curriculum and

in instructional practices.

C. The institutions selected in each division must

make a composite picture complete enough that

adding any other institution in the division will

not materially affect what has been observed.

For each institution selected a file was developed to be used for an in-depth study and analysis. Many sources are primary - in many instances photocopies of curricula, catalog data, faculty listings, major developments within departments, direct references, etc.

A good deal of information from the questionnaire, unpublished histories and departmental records are available only to this writer and appear in this dissertation only through the kindness and permission of the many respondents interested in an historical study of their discipline for this time period. Answers to the questionnaire are often of secondary and possibly tertiary significance, but the signatures are frequently of persons who must be regarded as reliable informants.

It has been possible to verify many responses through libraries of available catalogs, departmental or institutional histories and archives.

The growth and the strength of geological instruction in the American university towards the end of 8 the nineteenth century was based upon earlier, more modest advances. It is desirable, therefore, to review, in a reasonably detailed fashion the development of science and geology in American colleges and universities during the early and middle nineteenth century and also the forces and events which contributed to an awakening of instruction in the earth sciences in those years. These topics are the subjects of the following chapters. CHAPTER I

SCIENCE AND GEOLOGY IN AMERICAN COLLEGES

AND UNIVERSITIES DURING THE

NINETEENTH CENTURY

Prior to the 1850's, large numbers of "geologists"

were trained in theology and as physicians. Although if

there is any area of pure science in which physicians might

be expected to take minimal interest, it is geology; some

of the most brilliant, effective, and influential

geological work was carried out by medical men.

Hippocarates' "Airs, Waters, and Places," some consider the

first scientific study of the earth's surface.

Theophrastus has been credited with "discovering" petrography

("De Lapidibus") . Avicenna describing the formation of mountains^ Frascastorius' and da Vinci's insights into the

significance of fossil remains, Descartes' "molten magma" hypothesis, the theory of Hutton, the physician, for the

formation of earth's crust, are well known in geological

circles. To the student of mineralogy, Wollaston, achieved early recognition for his analyses of urinary calculi

(kidney stones). Cuvier, Lamarck, Agassiz, Owen, Leidy,

and S..G. Morton were trained as physicians (Scientific 9 10

Monthly Supplement, 1913, p. 103). Some considered that medical students were the only group with any training that might be called scientific. In any event their

contributions were significant to the early progress of geology as a science.

In addition, in the first-half of the century, a number of special events and forces made tremendous

impact on the development of geology in a relatively short period of time. Fairchild (1924, pp. 83-84) lists these:

Publication, 1809, of Maclure's article, "observations on the geology of the United States. The personal influence of Benjamin Silliman (1779-1864) and the founding of the "American Journal of Science" in 1818. The work of Amos Eaton (1776-1842) , the early teacher and leader in geology as a separate science. The organization of the Association of American Geologists in 1840. Charles Lyells' visits to America in 1841, 1845, , 1852. The introduction of glacial geology in 1841. Emmons' discovery of the Taconic (Cambrian) System, 1841-1842. The publications of James Hall's Report on the Fourth New York District in 1843, and three other New York reports. Description of the structure of the Appalachians by the Rogers brothers in 1842. The arrival of Louis Agassiz in 1846. Publication of the first volume of James Hall's series in paleontology in 1847.

Fairchild lists only twenty-four American geologists of some reputation prior to 1848. But there was little provinciality about early geology in America.

Investigators in New Haven, New York Boston and

Philadelphia were in communication with their counterparts 11 abroad. This included exchange of specimens, visits, new developments, and reprints from journals. A "remarkable, and scarcely expected fact" (Wilson, 1967, p. 437), namely, that the strata on both sides of the Atlantic contain remarkably similar sets of fossils, promoted a rapid growth in techniques and interpretations. Indeed, one might proudly say that at least the descriptions of

American geological formations made by native scientists were esteemed by Europeans. Some historians have often coupled the absence of great American science in the

19th century with the rise of American industrial society and the growth of America to the west. In truth this western expansion was a major element in the development of geology. More will be said to this later.

America did become a major nation early in the 19th century in engineering, that is, in various applications of science and inventiveness. This was not application of pure science in the sense of the discovery of new principles but empirical innovation and mechanical invention. The perfecting of the pétrographie microscope was one of the chief contributions to geology, in general, and to the interpretation of rock and mineral thin-sections, heralding the subspecialty petrology.

With the development in 1848 of Harvard's Lawrence

Scientific School and Yale's Sheffield School one can see reason in Cohen's remark (Cohen, 1959, p. 6 6 8 ): 12

It is fair to say, therefore, that from about 1750 to 1850 there was little or no interest in applied science (discovery of new principles) and that only from 1850 to now could there have been the excessive interest in applied science said to be characteristic of America.

From the mid-1850's to the mid-1860's scientific work was

in a state of suspension due to the stresses of the Civil

War. The American Association for the Advancement of

Science, for example, did not meet from 1861 until 1868,

the very period when Darwinian debate would have been most profitable. For all practical purposes scientific education was at a standstill, as many of the students of the new schools of science went off to war. Communication ceased with important southern families including the

LeContes, one of the most distinguished in geology. One might say that the war had a catalytic effect, strengthing ties among men of economic, political and scientific power.

It can be argued that by the mid-1870's, national culture entered a decisive phase with the resultant maturation of professionalized science. "Scientific men sought outlets for their energies that they could define as public, patriotic, and progressive" (Lurie, 1965, p. 696).

Fortunately, this did not bring a complete cessation of investigation, some did consider and continue their philosophical activity. Gray in botany and Pierce in mathematics come to mind.

Although some years have passed, natural history 13 was still the pre-eminent conceptual emphasis of natural science; however, with the war years and their aftermath a newer breed of professional naturalist emerged. No longer was the emphasis on the meaning or philosophy of nature in the older theological sense as had been the custom of the Sillimans, Hitchcocks and Agassizes. J.D.

Dana, for example, although deeply committed to theistic positions, did not prevent himself from associating such beliefs with evolutionary theory while working diligently to advance the factual and conceptual bases of that concept.

In geology, O.C. Marsh typified those investigators unhindered by an outmoded theory of analysis while anxious to determine truths in the new Darwinian proposals. As a result of this type of attitude by Marsh and others, the period began to see the emergence of a new education - a new type of scientist. Important, one might say revolutionary, pedagogic contributions that would have far-reaching effects emerged as young men were exposed to a culture of science found at Yale's Sheffield Scientific

School, The Peabody Museum, Harvard's Lawrence School,

The Museum of Comparative Zoology, the "Nautical Almanac", the Coast Survey, and the various geological agencies that fore-shadowed the Geological Survey.

It was not too long now, the early 80's, that the scientific curriculum became a central part of the 14 university with its practitioners enjoying considerable status.

Some have suggested that this middle period in scientific development was similar to the end stages of the industrial revolution, and that it was high time to consolidate gains and move forward increasing professionalism and a better public understanding of the philosophical purposes of science.

A few further comments regarding the growth and development of specialization and professionalization of

North American geology showing such rapid expansion, from roughly 1812 through 1862, to a much higher level of development laying the groundwork for the latter part of the century are appropriate. Aalto's study (Aalto, 19 69, p. 91-94) is especially helpful in this regard. To discover trends in pre-Civil War geology, he classified by subject matter some 2,30 8 pre-Civil War publications by 623 authors listed in the Catalogue and Index of

Contributions to North American Geology, 1732-1891 (Darton,

1896). Table 1 (excerpted from Aalto, 1969, p. 92) shows this general increase in special discipline publication rates especially during 1812-1821 and 1842 - 1851. One

Ccin readily account for a rise in geomorphology, for example, which may also be related to a decline in the number of papers on glaciology following the refutation of concepts proposed by Agassiz from his European studies TABLE 1: PUBLICATION RATE OF ARTICLES ON NORTH AMERICAN GEOLOGY

Journal or Organization 1802 '12 '22 '32 '42 '52 total

American Academy of Arts & Sciences 3 2 2 4 2 13 American Association for the Advancement of Science 71 72 143 American Association of Geologists and Naturalists 11 11 American Journal of Geology & Natural Science 1 6 7 American Journal of Science 53 179 139 194 133 698 American Mineralogical Journal 11 11 American Philosophical Society 1 1 1 7 8 4 22 Amer. Quart. Jour. Agriculture & Science 18 18 Boston Society of Natural History 72 137 209 British Association for the Advancement of Science 37 10 20 Canadian Naturalist 48 48 Debow Review 4 7 11 Geological Society (London) 3 2 2 32 31 70 German Publications 2 8 6 30 46 Mining Magazine and Journal of Geology 8 8 Philadelphia Academy of Natural Sciences 8 9 3 13 47 80 Quebec Literary & Historical Society 7 2 9 St. Louis Academy of Science 11 11 Smithsonian Institute 2 9 11 French Publications 1 5 13 47 66 Miscellaneous Journals 1 4 6 11 14 56 92 Canadian & Provincial Government 3 19 37 59 United States Government 2 2 5 7 73 65 154 State Surveys 6 110 42 100 258 Books, Pamphlets & Letters 1 13 25 29 51 85 204

Total numbers of articles 8 97 246 335 654 939 2279 u i 16 during the 1842 symposium of the American Association of

Geologists and Naturalists (Dana, 1918). On the other hand an increased interest in structural geology could well have.been stimulated by the superior work of the

Rogers brothers and others like J.D. Dana whose contributions were also discussed at great length at this same symposium (Dana, 1918).

As Aalto (1969, p. 93) indicates;

educational facilities, publication media, professional organization, and employment opportunity are prerequisites to the professionalization of a science. As early as 1820, these were available to American geologists.

More will be said of the educational facilities. One can see from Table 1 the trends in publications were, in general, increasing. The"American Journal of Science"

(1818), the American Geological Society (1819) and other geological organizations bringing together amateurs and professionals alike indicate an ever-increasing rate of professionalization and specialization well in evidence and established by the latter 1800's.

Many of the most notable institutional qualities of the period were to be found in the universities, especially like those at the University of Chicago and

Johns Hopkins University. Curricular references will be made later, but suffice it to say for the moment that the spirit that people like Gilman and Harper brought to their 17 institutions, the facilities they equipped them with, the movement to provide research-oriented graduate education, among others, set the stage for the great strides made in geology and geological education in the late 19th century.

Many professionals feel that geology was well established by 1860, emerging nebulously and with somewhat confusing beginnings in the century; however, gaining in

"leaps and bounds" as a separate science, as a culture, and as a highly practical activity.

Following the Civil War, many State surveys that survived the period along with newly or re-established ones began producing work of high quality. Hall in New

York,, his influence in building State organizations in the

Mississippi Valley region and in the Lake region, the development of mineral resources in Pennsylvania under the direction of J.P. Lesley are but two of many examples of the growth in geology as a practical activity. So remarkable was the work of Lesley that Merrill extolls this major contribution of the Second Geological Survey of

Pennsylvania by saying, "From the work of this organization has sprung up the most remarkable series of reports ever issued by any survey." (Mendenhall, 1937, p. 354),.

Tied in very closely with this survey work were individuals whom one might say contributed as much, if not more, to the growth of the discipline and, in a real 18

sense, to the recruitment and education of a brilliant

galaxy of individuals soon to be recognized as leaders of

their generation. Beginning under Newberry and later

Orton, the Ohio State Survey flourished. Close to follow

were Meek, Cope, Marsh, Whitfield, Stevenson, N.H.

Winchell, and G.K. Gilbert, some of whom added to their

accomplishments in surveys further accomplishments as

educators.

Many stimulating teachers came from these ranks.

Joseph LeConte joined the University of California

faculty in 1869. Shaler and Proctor were not only the

backbone of the Kentucky Survey, but were also extremely

successful as teachers. Shaler at Harvard has often been

referred to as one of the great "creators" of geologists.

The list is long, but must include Dana's influence at

Yale, T.C. Chamberlin heading the Wisconsin Survey, and

N.H. Winchell of Minnesota. In the South at Alabama,

Eugene A. Smith (1873) revived the Survey and for more

than fifty years served as a beloved teacher exerting

great influence as a leader of geology in that region.

One of the most important developments, as far as

official surveys are concerned, following the Civil War was in the increased participation in geologic work by

the Federal government. New lands, largely public land, beyond the Missouri, surveyed at this time had revealed previously unknown riches of paléontologie material which 19 created considerable impetus and desire for further work and exploration. Merrill calls the period from 1830 to

1870 that of the "State Surveys", but from the late sixties the Federal government was more and more active in geological study and mapping.

An excellent illustration of the effort expended by the Federal government during this time period was characterized by the 1869 exploratory efforts of Major J.

W. Powell down the Colorado River, dramatically related in his report of 1875. Not only did this obtain for him the directorship of the Geological survey of the Rocky

Mountain Region, but also an annual appropriation from

Congress. His personal surveys of 1871 - 1874 became offically sponsored surveys in 1875 - 1879.

These surveys along with those of F.V. Hayden, the

40th Parallel Studies of Clarence King and the geographical surveys west of the One Hundreth Meridian by

G.M. Wheeler culminated, through the efforts of Major

Powell, in the organization of a strong and influential

United States Geological Survey in 1879.

Fairchild (1932, p. 47) remarks on the impact of explorations, especially in western North America, for this latter period of the century.

The explorations in the western part of America, during the years 1867-1890, with the wonderful, discoveries in structure, dynamics and in the evolution of the vertebrates, probably make the most brilliant chapter in the entire history 20 of geology. The great development of the science in America is due to its wealth in geologic material. Archibald Geikie has said that 'had the study of the earth begun in the new world instead of the old, geology would unquestionably have made a more rapid advance than it has done'

In fact, Hayden at this time reported that:

Eighteen hundred and sixty-seven, therefore, marks, in the history of national geological work, a turning point, when the science ceased to be dragged in the dust of rapid exploration and took a commanding position in the professional work of the country. (Mendenhall, 1937, p. 357).

One might readily describe the 19th century as the time when American geology was "bequeathed a rich inheritance of facts" (Willis, 1942, p. 171).

Unfortunately the science did not have a strong theoretical base. There were so many more facts, in most all branches of the science, that no scholar could necessarily embrace them all. Specialists emerged, unlike

Dana the universal geologist. Branch societies were organized for scholars of one specialty to communicate with other areas. Quite often, especially in the early stages, an individual advancing in his own line of endeavor needed support from his colleagues on other lines.

Mutual exchange of ideas, so important to the scholar of today, received considerable attention and enthusiasm during these early days of a rapidly developing "new" geology.

Fairchild (1924, p. 87) summarizes a number of important events in the progress of geology prior to 1900. 21

These include many famous surveys notably F.V. Hayden's

Surveys of the Rocky Mountain Region (1867-1879), Clarence

King's Survey of the 40th Parallel (1867-1877), G.M.

Wheeler's Surveys (1869-1879), and Lesley's Second

Geological Survey of Pennsylvania (1874-1887). Also of

considerable importance were the thirteen volumes of

Pacific Railroad reports (1855-1860), the reports of J.S.

Newberry on the Ives exploration of the lower Colorado

Valley (1859), G.E. Dutton on the high plateaus of Utah

(1880), W.P. Jenney and Henry.Newton on the Black Hills of

Dakota (1880), and G.K. Gilbert's reports on the Henry

Mountains (1880) and Lake Bonneville (1877-1890).

N.H. Darton's catalog and index of articles on the geology of North America (1896), Joseph LeConte's papers on geophysical problems (1872-1896), J.S. Whitney's

studies of the metallic wealth of the United States (1854),

Edward Hitchcock's article on "Surface Geology" (1856) and

two notable discussions, the "Laramie problems" (1872-

1897) and the nature of "Eozoon" (1865-1894) were also

included as significant events to the development of geology pre-1900.

Fairchild also makes mention of texts and

references, especially Dana's Manual of Geology (first ed.,

1863), W.E. Logan's Geology of Canada (1863), J.W.

Dawson's Acadian Geology (1855; third ed., 1878), the two volumes of H.D. Rogers on the Geology of Pennsylvania 22

(1858) and the famous fifteen-volume series on

paleontology by James Hall (1847-1898).

The organization of the Geological Society of

America (1888) and the establishment of the United States

Geological Survey (1879) were two milestones in

geological history included in Fairchild's summary.

A valuable paper by McGee (1890, pp. 217-222)

points specifically to those organizations and

institutions, along with the increased effort along

individual lines, who contributed much to geological

development especially during the biennial period, 1887,

1888 when the science was moving with vigor;

So, while the results of individual effort are of inestimable value to the growing science of geology, and while any account of the science must deal primarily with the contributions of individuals, it would seem desirable to preface even a short chapter in the history of progress by some notice of the institutions to which, in conjunction with the individual workers, that progress is due; and accordingly the following descriptive list of the principal American institutions now promoting geologic science is prefixed to the account of actual progress during recent years, and particularly the biennial period 1887, 1888.

His paper briefly surveys the activities of the

Federal Government including the U.S. Geological Survey,

U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey, U.S. Signal Office, The

Corps of Engineers of the U.S. Army, etc. Also helpful is

the summary of major contributions of the Geological Survey

of Canada. The major portion of this part of the paper 23 deals with summary activities of seventeen State Surveys extending from Alabama to Wyoming.

A second major emphasis of McGee's paper (1890, pp. 222-227) deals with contributions of a number of universities and colleges in America which promote directly or indirectly original investigations, by students and faculty, and the publication of the results of these studies.

The third part of the McGee report (1890, pp. 228-

229) enumerates a number of learned societies and other scientific organizations that either provided funds for or had personnel available for original investigation and publication of results.

There were eight major institutions:

Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia

■American Museum of Natural History

New York State Cabinet of Natural History

Peabody Museum of Comparative Zoology

Peabody Museum of Yale University

Smithsonian Institution

U.S. National Museum

Wagner Free Institute of Science

Approvimately fifty-five societies promoting geologic work by publishing the results of geological investigations were in operation during the later part of the nineteenth century making noteworthy contributions to the advancement and growth of geology. There was 24 considerable variety in the types of societies and they showed something of how wide the interest in geological studies was at the time. For example, among this diverse group was the American Institute of Mining Engineers, the

American Philosophical Society, the Appalachian Mountain

Club, the Cincinnati Society of Natural History, the

Franklin Institute in Philadelphia, the San Diego Lyceum of Science and the Wisconsin Academy of Arts, Sciences and

Letters.

The birth of the Geological Society of America in

1888 was one of the most noteworthy events of the period.

Its original membership consisted of 102 members. The leaders for the most part were those truly influential at the time both in scientific contribution and educational philosophy. Their names appear throughout this dissertation. This G.S.A. roster included the famous geologist and paleontologist, James Hall as president;

James D. Dana, first vice-president; Alexander Winchell, second vice-president; John J. Stevenson, secretary; Henry

S. Williams, treasurer; members at large included John S.

Newberry, J.W. Powell, and Charles H. Hitchcock.

The following roll of presidents of the

Geological Society of America is of historic interest, many of whom were not only greatly concerned with advancements in the teaching of geology but also in promoting the discipline itself: James Hall, Albany, N.Y., 25

(1889); James D. Dana, New Haven, Conn., (1890);

Alexander Winchell, Ann Arbor, Mich., (1891); Grove K.

Gilbert, Washington, D.C., (1892); J. William Dawson,

Montreal, Canada, (1893); Thomas C. Chamberlin, Chicago,

111., (1894); Nathaniel S. Shaler, Cambridge, Mass.,

(1895); Joseph LeConte, Berkeley, Calif., (1896); Edward

Orton, Columbus, Ohio, (1897); John J. Stevenson, New

York, N.Y., (1898); Benjamin K. Emerson, Amherst, Mass.,

(1899); George M. Dawson, Ottawa, Canada, (1900).

Likewise the principal leadership in the American

Association for the Advancement of Science, later on to be held by distinguished scientists in the various fields of science, was for forty years, 1848 to 1888, occupied by ten geologists serving as President and nine geologists as Chairmen of their respective sections. Again one finds that many of these were the names consistently found throughout the literature of this period as the giants in both geological education and research. Geology deserves a special debt of gratitude, especially during this time of the growth and development of the sciences in America, for its role not only in the organization and strengthening of its own learned society but also for the guidance and direction it gave to what has come to be known among the most famous and prestigious of scientific societies, the Ainerican Association for the Advancement of Science. 26 Fairchild (1932, pp. 59-60) reports the following

geologists as officers from 1848-1888; William B. Rogers,

1848, 1876; Louis Agassiz, 1851; James D. Dana, 1854;

James Hall, 1856; John S. Newberry, 1867; T. Sterry Hunt,

1870; Othniel C. Marsh, 1878; J. William Dawson, 1882;

J. Peter Lesley, 1884; John W. Powell, 1888. The Chairmen

of Section B, 1875-1880 were: J. William Dawson, 1875;

Othniel C. Marsh, 1877; John W. Powell, 1879. Charles H.

Hitchcock, 1883; Newton H. Winchell, 1884; Edward Orton,

1885; T.C. Chamberlin, 1886; Grove K. Gilbert, 1887;

George H. Cook, 1888 were the Chairmen of Section E, 1881-

1888.

An event apropos of the communication and dissemination of knowledge within the discipline were the

sessions of the International Geological Congress in

London, attended by a large number of Americans and later in Philadelphia (1891). This was a major decision by the

London Congress to hold the next session in Philadelphia.

This decision automatically brought about a scurry for formulating schemes for the classification and cartography of geologic phenomena along with the publication of several reports augumenting substantially the literature of American systematic geology.

Another major event, referred to above, was the establishment of "The American Geologist", 1888, as a strictly geologic journal. This was essentially a 27

"western enterprise", operated mainly by western talent in the persons of Professor Samuel Calvin, Dr. Alexander

Winchell, Professor N.H. Winchell, Professor Edward W.

Claypole, et. al.

One of the most significant contributions of

McGee's paper, especially for this time, is an attempt to develop a geologic philosophy. Some advanced thinkers had made attempts previously; however, even though it had not yet extended to the textbooks, there appeared to be a rapid extension in the literature and amongst the workers at this time. "The primary geologic classification was based directly upon the objective phenomena of geology; and early geologic literature was pervaded, and the science shaped, by this fundamental idea" (McGee, 1890, p. 231). Soon, however, such a classification became too restrictive to properly relate facts, relationships, etc., and further sub-division was necessary. Powell in 1884 devised the following classification as a basis for interpreting North American Geology.

I. Volcanic geology. VIII. Lithic geology.

II. Diastrophic geology IX. Petromorphic geology.

III. Hydric geology. X. Geochronic geology.

IV. Glacic geology. XI. Choric geology.

V. Eolic geology. XII. Geomorphic geology.

VI. Biotic geology. XIII. Economic geology.

VII. Anthropic geology. XIV. Geologic technology. 28

Further investigation of this outline provides a

three-part basis for classification:

(1 ) agencies and conditions of geology

(2 ) generalized objective phenomena of geology

(3) applications of geologic science

One might place this scheme between the purely objective

systems previously considered and the genetic systems which were evolved from it.

Around the same time Gilbert developed a somewhat more elaborate scheme with subject matter divided into

processes and products including their distribution in

time and space as significant elements. Figure 2 (Rep.

British Assn., 1884, p. 732) details this plan.

As the relative importance of agencies and

conditions and objective phenomena became more obvious with a predilection towards a genetic taxonomy, McGee published his classification.

The following scheme (Figure 1), including

geography, is presented in this study as one of the early

attempts at indicating relationships between agencies

and processes such as deformation, gradation and

subordinate categories of vulcanism, glaciation, etc.

(McGee, 1888, pp. 27-36). 29

CLASSIFICATION OF GEOLOGIC PROCESSES

• l.-Defor- Antecedent Epeirogenic Elevation, la S mation. Consequent Orogenic Depression.

o o 2.-Gradation...... Deposition. •H S’ Degradation, k tJ P4 Id o 1.-Vulcanism...... Extravasation. (Antithesis of extrav.)

o 2.-Alteration...... Li thif action. Decomposition. o S' 3.-Glaciation...... Glacial construction Ü 0) Glacial destruction C ’rp 4.-Wind action...... Wind construction. o Wind destruction. a w 5.-vital action...... Various constructive and destructive processes.

(The matter of this record is arranged in accordance with the last classification.)

FIGURE 1

Related to these attempts by various workers in the

field to establish a geologic philosophy, albeit mainly a

taxonomic one, several important conceptions can be

delineated as notable for this particular period.

(1) A transition from a purely objective

classification to one based on processes or

fundamental principles and laws - a much more CLASSIFICATION OF GEOLOGY

Diastrophic geology. : of masses (1 Volcanic geology. r4 G of particles, ice... (3 Glacic geology. the agency water (4 Hydric geology. motion being wind (5 Eolic geology. pro— life.. (6 Biotic geology. cesses of Man.. (7 Anthropic geology. change, depend- molecular...... (8 Chemic geology. ra a ing on transmutation of motion...... (9 Circulation geology. 1include 0} products rocks composed...... ( 1 0 Lithology. ■â of variously arranged...... ( 1 1 Petromorphic geology. Geomorphic geology. o change ( 1 2 •H O. ...(13 Alabama. r—I geographically...... (14 Alaska. o 0) Etc. o are distributed...... (61 Historic. chronologically...... (62 Quaternary. Etc.

(74 Geologic technology. Geologic literature treats also of two arts ! ! ! (75 Economic geology.

FIGURE 2 w o (Rep. British Assn., 1884, p. 732) 31

logical, comprehensive and overall simpler approach.

Something like this had been attempted earlier,

but was just now reaching a level of

sophistication to become legitimate and acceptable.

(.2 ) A very important addition to the way of looking at

geological processes and, thereby, extending one's

conceptual appreciation of the science, took place

during this time by interpreting geologic history

from the records of degradation rather than

principally from the records of deposition,

characteristic of the "old" geology.

(3) Extensive work towards the invention of a method

for determining earthquake center depths as well

as the determination of velocities was underway.

Not only did these revolutionize seismology but

also gave considerable insight to the geologist,

in general, regarding the crust and sub-crustal

characteristics of the earth.

(4) Extending the known geologic time column thus

expanding greatly the known geologic history by

the recognition and definition of the Algonkian.

Along with this, only at the sub-divisional level,

was the recognition of the Lower Cretaceous.

This was recognized in Europe but not in America

up to this point. A third stratigraphie

clarification of epoch-marking significance 32

included the correct determination of the

Silurian and Cambrian in a specially geologically

complex area beyond the Hudson.

Continuing the state of the science in this century, particularly the latter part, now that a genetic classification is, in part, established; a brief summary

for selected specialty areas follows:

Evolution- Physical evolution, natural processes

developing earth's features, has been generally

accepted, it is in the area of organic evolution

that much debate followed Darwin's work.

Exploration in the west, particularly among the

vertebrates, established many transitional forms

and gave considerable credence to the development

of new forms from old.

Glacial Geology- Although this area of geology began

with Agassiz's paper before the Geological Society

of London in 1841, it was not for some twenty years

to come that general acceptance and use of the

glacial theory for systematic work made its impact on

glacial investigations. This can be seen readily,

without going into greater detail, in the remarks of

Professor Hitchcock in 1842 before the Association of

American Geologists (Fairchild, 1932, pp. 57-58):

Professor Hitchcock seemed to declare his adherence to the glacial hypothesis, as applied to America, with as little hesitation 33

and qualification as would be expected of a careful man of science espousing a new theory that antagonized the prevailing belief and prejudice of his fellow-workers. It is evident from subsequent records that his utterances were accepted at the time as committing him to the acceptance of the theory of Agassiz, but unfortunately.... the circumstances and scientific forces of that time did not allow him to stand on the advanced ground he had taken.

Another remark of Fairchild's (1932, p. 58), vividly describes some of the forces opposing the glacial theory, not altogether scientific:

Agassiz was a comparatively young man and quite unknown in geology except for his studies of glaciers. How could his opinion weigh against those of the giants in geology? Another power, which will scarcely appear in the scientific writings of the time, but which was a great conservative force, was theological opinion. All hypotheses invoking water as the drift agency might be harmonized with belief in the Noachan deluge, but the Bible gave no countenance to an ice deluge. To explain it away was little better than heresy.... Further­ more, the diluvial hypotheses were unduly deductive, and like all opinions not based on observational or inductive evidence did not readily yield to arguments derived from facts. The older geologists had made up their minds and that settled it.

Pétrographie Geology- One observes the gradual development of this specialty with continued progress in microscopical techniques. Werner was the great authority on rocks at the beginning of the century, but by 1888 chemical and optical studies had reached a high point of activity. The invention of the Nicol prism in 1829, the famous memoir of Henry Sorby, "On 34

the Microscopic Structure of Crystals" in 1858 and the

emphasis of the Canadian explorations of the

Precambrian, with their associated rich metallic

deposits, gave this field the status that it was to

continue to enjoy. More will be said later about the

pétrographie microscope and its impact on this

awakening science. Zirkel, Fouque, Teall and Harker were among the leaders from Europe. G.H. Williams,

J.P. Iddings, and L.V. Pirsson advanced the science

in America.

Physiography- There appeared to be little scientific

physiography (land forms, geomorphology) until

roughly the middle of the century. Topography was

descriptive, very frequently with no or very little

reference to processes or cause. Hitchcock in 1856

presented an essay which has been regarded as the

beginning of American physiography; however, with the

efforts of Powell, and his report of 1874 on the

Colorado Canyon, and the geographer, W.M. Davis, the

subject was elevated to higher scientific levels. One might easily say that it is only within very recent years that geomorphology has adopted the quantitative

approach believed by many necessary to dignify

science. In many instances geologists had either

inaccurate or no maps to work with at all. This was

a time of map-making. From about 1886 on field 35 investigation was enchanced greatly by some of the most unusual maps that engraving and printing of the time would permit.

Geophysics- During this period topics such as

"Subsidence of Oceanic Areas Under Effects of

Sedimentation" (associated rise in continental areas),

"Earth's contraction from a molten state with associated relief features developed," "Crustal movement and mountain formation" were suggested and discussed. However, perhaps, the most important contribution was C.E. Dutton's proposition in 1880 of the principle of isostasy. "This postulates an equilibrium of weight or pressure in the earth's crust, with readjustment by subcrustal flow when adjacent areas become unbalanced by loading or unloading"

(Fairchild, 1932, p. 55). There is no need to elaborate further upon this principle at this point, except to say that many of its essentials generally are accepted and raised serious debate during ensuing years - at times "in" and at times "out".

Paleobotany- The authoritative work to about 1885 is found in Lester F. Ward's "Sketch of Paleobotany." He considered the beginnings of modern paleobotany contemporaneous with the use of fuel coal, around 1800.

A.T. Brongniart and other Europeans tended to dominate the field during the earlier period. Review of the 36

scientific rosters reveals many famous workers. Leo

Lesquereux, J.W. Dawson, J.S. Newberry, Lester F. Ward

illuminate the American scene.

Paleontology- The reptilian bird. Archaeopteryx

discovered in Europe in 1862 (a better defined

specimen found in 1873), and the remarkable finds,

exhibiting a series of steps in the development of the horse and discovered in America, were the two most

significant discoveries of biologic interest. The

list of major contributors during this period is

legion. Heading the list is James Hall often referred to as the "Father of Invertebrate Paleontology" in

America. O.C. Marsh, famous vertebrate paleontologist in his own right, made this pronouncement before the

American Association for the Advancement of Science in 1879. J. Barrande exceeded these prolific efforts by publishing some twenty-four quarto volumes, with material left for five others compared to fifteen quarto volumes (4,539 pages, 1,080 plates) of Hall.

Hall's efforts were continued by R.P. Whitfield, C.D.

Walcott, J.M. Clarke, and R. Ruedemann. Vertebrate paleontology with its spectacular reptile and mammal finds from the western deposits tended to overshadow invertebrate paleontology. However, even with all the glamour associated with many of these finds, invertebrates have proven their extreme importance as 37

criteria for time succession of marine strata.

Although the Frenchman, Cuvier, is regarded as the

"Father of Vertebrate Paleontology", America had its

illuminaries in Thomas Jefferson, often proclaimed its

earliest student, and in the remarkable contributions,

especially his reproductions, of Joseph Leidy. O.C.

Marsh, E.D. Cope and J.S. Newberry are also listed

for the latter years of this period.

Stratigraphy- One of the more perplexing and lively

problems in the field of stratigraphy during the latter

part of the century dealt with what became quickly known as the "Laramie" problem. Details of the problem are not appropriate for this report, but some

of the outcomes are. Especially during the years 1872-

1897 great discussions took place over I' 3 geological

age, Cretaceous or Tertiary, of certain separated

formations in the Rocky Mountains. It was found that they bridged the "gap" in the record between the two great geologic eras, the Mesozoic and the Cenozoic.

Notable lithologie changes due to sea level variations

appeared to account for this. The controversy also helped to clarify the importance of varieties of

fossil indicators - plant, invertebrates and vertebrates - as horizon markers. The truth emerging here stressed the continuity of geologic time, the more or less arbitrary nature of the time divisions and that 38

these great time divisions are possible to distinguish

by the culmination of major physical changes on earth

or by major developments and changes in some life

forms.

Changing the subject at this point, one might

consider the gradual emergence of geology as a public

function. It has been suggested that this began with the

admission and activity of the State Surveys (Figure 3):

1900 1890 1880

1840

1820 GRAPH SHOWING DATE OF ADMISSION OF EACH STATE AND PERIODS OF ACTIVE STATE 1800 GEOLOGICAL SURVEYS diru TO 1900

Q Q.ZOOZ5 ir> ict- o_i5s 5 CSu.t-2SoSOi:SzzoZ(n£5S53

Figure 3 (Back, 1959, p. 206)

Likewise a good deal of effort was expended

throughout the first half of the nineteenth century by both Federal and State governments to promote research

and science, a more effective and less controversial

emergence may be said to have taken place in 1879 by a 39

Congressional act creating the U.S. Geological Survey.

Back (1959, p. 205) reports:

The congressional act of March 3, 1879, that created the U.S. Geological Survey marked the acceptance of geology as a science having permanent value for and deserving permanent support from the American people.

The problem with state surveys and the conflict between public policy in pure and applied science in the nineteenth century is vividly detailed in Nash's paper

(1963, pp. 217-228), regarding the dilemma of the

California State Geological Survey. The time is also interesting, 1860-1874. Gradually diversities of objectives became apparent, along with poor articulation, these laying the basis for controversy between pure and applied science. The California Survey, was in many respects, one of the outstanding in its endeavors. The

Survey headed by Josiah Whitney, later to become

Professor of Geology at Harvard, served as a training school for a host of distinguished scientists among whom were William Brewer, later Professor of Agriculture at

Yale and Clarence King, a leading science writer. Charles

F. Hoffman, noted for his contributions to American topography, and W.M. Gabb, a renown paleontologist, also serve to illustrate the prominence of this organization.

The conflict "boiled down" to an awareness by

Whitney and his followers to have the survey function:

(1) to explore extensively the geology of the State which 40

up to 1860 was relatively unknown, and (2 ) to examine

specific regions for their more practical and utilitarian

aspects. Herein lay the difficulty. Nash (1963, p. 222)

says of Whitney, "As a devoted geologist, Whitney

considered the pursuit of pure science to be most important."

He did divide the survey into three divisions -

Topographical, Geological, Natural History. Once a

ten-year program of general studies was completed, Whitney planned to put into practice the "practical" objectives of his commission. In the meantime, the legislators were

looking for results. The sub-committee on Mines and

Mining Interests in 1863 reported (Nash, 1963, p. 223):

We...expect that the reports will be of direct industrial value - particularly those portions relating to the Monte Diablo coal region, and the modes practiced in this state for extracting gold. The Botanist has devoted much .attention to the grasses and clovers and is now engaged in extensive inquiries to ascertain what varieties are most palatable and nutritious to herbivorous animals.

The irony here is that in the survey's "eagerly awaited" Volume I, the coverage included a study of four kinds of fossils. This was a bitter disappointment and did irreparable harm to the future of the Survey.

Apparently Whitney was a curt, outspoken - a generally antagonistic person. Much hostility had been aroused to the point that when the legislature adjourned in 1867 no appropriations for its continued work were made.

Whitney sought and received private funds to pursue some 41 of his investigations. The scientific work, although being cut off from governmental financial aid, was still considerable. By 1874, the office was abolished and incompleted projects were taken over by the University of

California.

Nash's (1963, p. 228) concluding remarks summarize the problem very well. Similar circumstances, may have accounted for some of the difficulties that other state surveys had in their early years.

Despite such important scientific contributions, the survey foundered. Apart from the clash of personalities, a prime reason for its abolition was the lack of a clear conception of its tasks by its various supporters. Whitney, as the foremost advocate of pure research, had scant appreciation of the necessity to produce practical results and to cultivate a friendly public. The lawmakers, deeply involved in a frontier economic boom, had neither patience, sympathy^ nor understanding for achievements .of longrange scientific value. For them, research was a means to an end only, a method to promote the more rapid exploitation of resources. The California State Geological Survey thus foundered upon the increasingly divergent conceptions of its tasks, as did so many state and federal research agencies of this period. Yet it was as a result of this hard-won experience in the nineteenth century that scientists and public policy-makers after 1900 gained a clearer recognition of the specific functions and objectives of government aid to science.

Little more needs to be said regarding the need for a centralized organization to coordinate events and direct attention to many of the "practical" needs and requirements of the public. The Civil War and events 42 immediately thereafter brought to light such concerns as necessity for military routes in the west, public land problems, western exploration in general, surveys for and construction of the railroads. These had a stimulating effect on mjmerous investigators. "Willing workers were abundant and Congress not difficult in granting the necessary fonds." (Merrill, 1924, p. 500). Undoubtedly the change by the Congress from no new state surveys to the establishment of a centralized organization was a major step in the emergence of geology as a public function. Back (1959, p. 208) considers this change in attitude "attributed at least in part to a gradual shift in the point of initiation of new functions in the government." Certainly the act of utilizing the Smithson estate and creating the Smithsonian Institution is an example of cin early decision by the Congress towards new responsibilities and functions. Government expanded and with it newly organized departments and activities. There tended to develop such strong support, as western surveys sought Congressional appropriations, that their very actions and force of these actions facilitated the initiation of these many new functions. The results were soon, to be obvious, the western surveys grew in strength and with t h i s increased power and popularity moved the government in the direction of establishing a more economical operation, combining purposes and personnel in 43 formulating a single agency, the United States Geological

Survey.

To conclude this unit on the state of the geological sciences during the 1800's some mention should be made regarding its popularization. Pangborn's brief article (1959, pp. 224-227) indicates that geology held a position of high public esteem early in the century, around

1830-1840. This was the period of the lyceum or public lecture. Prominent geologists including Agassiz, who was very much impressed with the popularity of these series when he arrived here in 1846; Eaton, Silliman, H.D. Rogers and Lyell were, indeed, very active in these activities proselytizing whenever and wherever they had an opportunity. It is reported that Amos Eaton alone gave some 3000 lectures outside formal classroom sessions.

Some regard the financing of a number of early State surveys by State legislatures the result of the enthusiasm and popularity of these geologists, among others.

Fortunately the geologists of strong conviction and interest in popularizing their science made extensive use of their own lectures and notes. The concepts, not only relatively simple in these times but also in the unique ability of these men in presenting their concepts to the layman at the layman's level, accounted for large attendances at these lyceums.

Apparently six important works selling well and 44

influencing the populace enabling geology to entertain

such a position of prominence were (Pangborn, 1959, p.

226) r

Eaton, Amos. Geological text book, prepared for public lectures on North American geology; 63 pp. Webster and Skinners. Albany, 1830.

Dana, James Dwight. A System of mineralogy; 144 pp. Durrie & Peck, New Haven, 1837.

Hitchcock, Edward. Elementary geology, ed. 2: 346 pp. Dayton & Saxton, New York, 1841. (Went through 30 editions in 20 years: Hitchcock tried to reconcile the Bible and geology.)

Lyell, Charles. Elements of geology, 1st American ed. James Kay, Philadelphia, 1839. (Lyell's numerous textbooks went through many editions.)

Mantell, Gideon Algernon. The wonders of geology. 2 vols. A.H. Maltby, New Haven, 1839. (This and Medals of creation were intended for the layman.)

Miller, Hugh. The Old Red Sandstone. Edinburgh, 1841.

Public interest in geology felt the adverse effects of the Civil War and unfortunately remained very much under its influence into the 1900's. One might well be somewhat surprised at this with the interest and developments in western exploration. Three propositions are suggested by Pangborn (1959, p. 224) attributing to this stalemate.

(1) a snowballing increase in the special and

technical terminology unacceptable now to the

layman especially after the clear, lucid. 45

exciting presentations of the Eatons, Sillimans,

and others.

(2) too professional and complicated a literature

(3) a sharp and unfortunate decline in the number of

geologists actually interested in popularizing

their science.

The explorations and books of John Wesley Powell

and Clarence King did a great deal; however, to

counteract negative reactions. These two important

editions were (Pangborn, 1959, p. 226);

King, Clarence Rivers. Mountaineering in the Sierra Nevada. J.R. Osgood, Boston, 1872.

Powell, John Wesley. The exploration of the Colorado River of the West...: 291 pp. Government Printing Office, Washington, 1875.

One would not be surprised that the reported best

seller, arousing both the intellectual community and laity

alike here in America and abroad, was Darwin's, Origin of

Species.

Listed below are four books that were prominent

in helping to keep geology alive and before the public during a critical and rapidly changing period for the

study of the earth (Pangborn, 1959, p. 226):

Shaler, Nathaniel Southgate. Aspects of the earth: 344 pp. Scribner, New York, 1889.

Winchell, Alexander, Walks and talks in the geological field: 329 pp. Chautauqua Press, New York, 1886. 46

Dana, James Swight. The geological story briefly told; 302 pp. American Book Co., New York, 1895.

Hutchinson, Henry Neville. Extinct monsters...; 254 pp. Appleton, New York, 1892.

An interesting example, that Pangborn notes (1959, p. 225)is Winchell's, Walks and talks in the geological field which remained recommended reading, for sometime, for the Chautauqua Association, who in 1900 numbered some five million on its rolls. Pangborn also makes special note that the last entry on this list by Hutchinson, an

English clergyman, was free of the theological controversy of earlier days. Further reference will be made to this trend toward the secularization of texts in the latter part of the century. CHAPTER II

FORCES AND EVENTS CONTRIBUTING TO AN AWAKENING

OF INSTRUCTION IN THE EARTH SCIENCES

IN THE 1800's

The most rapid progress of geologic science in the field of education in America was during the years 1866 to 1888. In that short period geology advanced from an incidental subject in the college courses to a major study, and in the older and stronger colleges was given departmental status (Fairchild, 1932, pp. 47-48.

He also lists four "forces" at work affecting this renaissance.

It may be well to include these suggestions of

Fairchild's which will, in effect, increase the number of

"forces" affecting this awakened interest, also increasing the time period under study to include events somewhat before and after 1875. These are not listed in any special order of significance, although some have had more impact than others.

(1) Lectures and texts, especially Dana's

Manual of Geology of 1863.

(2) Secularization of geology textbooks in the United

States in the nineteenth century (Wittmer, 19 67) .

47 48

(3) The work of Henry A. Ward with the eventual

organization of Ward's Natural Science

Establishment.

(4) Exploration of the west.

(5) Expansion of the railroads.

(6) Invention of dry-plate and film photography.

(7) Development of the pétrographie microscope

(Mathews, 1927).

(8) Emphasis and progress in field mapping and field

teaching (Nash, 1963).

(9) Continued influence of foreign investigations

and contributions (McGee, 1890).

(10) American students seeking European education

(French, 1946).

(11) Continued trends toward specialization and

professionalism (e.g., doctoral dissertations at

many of the major institutions)(Chronic, 1957).

(12) Recognition of higher learning by the leadership

of institutions (e.g., Gilman, Harper)

(Rudolph, 19 65).

(13) Philanthropy (Sears, 1922).

(14) Economic needs and prospects for natural

resources exploration (Nash, 1963).

(15) Tremendous growth in the state of knowledge of

the discipline (Merrill, 1924).

(16) Progress in education, in general (Vesey, 1965). 49

(17) The organization of geology departments, changes

in curricula in existing ones (Hopkins, 1896).

(18) Continued emphasis on the applied and practical

advantages to be accured (Brooks, 1912).

(19) Enthusiasm and vigor of those relatively few

geologists of their day - the geologist-teachers.

Items one, three, four and six are listed as

"forces" by Fairchild, the remaining fifteen are suggested from, the writer's study of the literature. Undoubtedly, one might add to this list. Suffice it to say, that these were dominating factors bringing "to life" not only a

"new" geology but a rebirth in its teaching.

Alexander Winchell's classic Shall We Teach

Geology? (1889, pp. 217) should be read by everyone interested in the state of geological education during this period. In his analysis he describes clearly why geology deserves more recognition. The atmosphere, in the colleges and universities and in the lower schools, was one of rivalry with professional studies, rivalry with linguistic and literary studies, rivalry with programs preparing for teaching, geological studies considered purely unprofessional and illiberal allowances of means made available to the subject.

Winchell beleived that the study of geology promoted intellectual culture (i.e., powers of the mind amenable to culture), that the diversification of the 50

subject increased powers of observation and induction,

retrospective induction and prospective deduction. He

also saw ethical influences in geologic conceptions.

Examples included exaltation of the soul, purification of popular beliefs, ethical influence of geological preoccupation of the mind, and the scientific habit of the mind. Winchell believed that geology adapted itself to the ends of general culture and education.

One of the most important points in Winchell's thesis of the importance of geology and its recognition is that "its study promotes modern civilization." This can be seen in the Geological Surveys of the American states,

Surveys in the foreign countries, a National Survey, various public acts, private enterprises, applied geology and increasing contributions to the general welfare and progress.

Winchell places a good deal of emphasis on the importance and attributes of geology being studied at an early age, i.e., in the lower schools. He lists a number of reasons. The writer lists them for many pertain equally well to the placement of geology in the curriculum of higher education:

A period of observation Opinions both dissenting and assenting Observations usually accompanied by reflection Accessory advantages of the young persons physical activity It is (can be) a pleasure Concrete things best control attention 51

Delight afforded by observational study, sense-activity, reflection awakened, discovery of truth and emotion Geology deals with the common and familiar things Preserves balance of mind A general education at each grade A succession of courses to be pursued (Winchell, 1889, pp. viii-ix) .

In a sequel to Winchell's insightful essay,

Packard in "Why We Should Teach Geology" (1892, pp. 73-77), states that "Geology, then, in its broadest scope should be taught in our schools and colleges, and for at least

11 good reasons." These, compared to the preceding ones of Winchell, speak more to the subject of geology as a subject and some of its practical concerns rather than of its more philosophical benefits. Packard begins by placing geology with equal rank to astronomy and biology, and also asserts that "no liberally educated person can, then, afford to ignore the study." He claims for the teaching of geology,

(1) Geology sheds light on the origin of the earth and

the solar system, also how earth became adapted

for the maintenance of life.

(2) At a very early time period (the early

Laurentian, Archean), through geology one gets

a hint when the earth assumed its shape, size,

and simple forms of life came about.

(3) Contends that diastrophic and eustatic activity

(not his terminology) brought about the great

diversity of life in changing the paleogeography 52

of the times.

(4) That the geologist is the only qualified one to

answer how the great variety of rocks, some with

fossils, some transformed from other rock types,

etc., came about.

(5) The origin of ores - "brought up from the bowels

of the earth" - are associated with mountain

building.

(6) The continent as well as its physical features

(mountains and climates) have passed through

numerous periods of youth, maturity, old age,

which account for the specific assemblages of

life forms existing at that time. Packard asserts

that these are "well understood by our geologists."

(7) Coal and coal-oils are products of geological

activity. Attention to coal-oils has only come

into prominence since 1860; in any case, once

living plants and animals were the source.

(8) Paleontology sheds light on evolution. Not only

evolution of higher forms of life but also of the

many marine invertebrates a.nd air-breathing

vertebrates. This is as important to knowledge

as are the origins of the Greeks and Romans

learned in history classes.

(9) Similar to number eight, the evolutionary lines

of descent, particularly those treating of the 53

lineages of the horse, ox, camel, can be made

interesting to the brighter student. Packard

relates this to the importance given in education

to the memorizing of dates of the birth and death

of kings and other miscellaneous historical facts.

(10) Fossils are time-markers of geology and have

practical usage characterizing specific formations.

Some of the formations may be of economic

significance.

(11) The antiquity and evolution of man are essential

elements. Paleontology again must be called upon

to learn more regarding the later Tertiaries of

Africa and Madagascar, if possible the primate

predecessors. In addition, associated with

anthropology, the more recent discoveries of

modern man's culture can be revealed.

Packard's concerns for the discipline and its effective teaching are clearly indicated in the summary paragraph of his paper (1892, p. 77):

Such is the light which geology has already thrown upon the origin of man, and of the world in which he lives. Who can deny the utility and importance of a study which bears such fruits? How can a person be regarded as liberally educated who has not been brought in contact with these facts? And yet there are still hundreds and thousands of our college graduates who have neither had careful training in the principles, nor have been brought into contact with the grand results of modern geology; whose minds have not felt the inspiration and mental tension resulting from contact with these wonderful discoveries and 54

conclusions. Is there not every reason why geology should be taught, provided the facts and principles be imparted in a way to stimulate, quicken, and expand the mind?

Of the many forces effecting an awakening and enrichment of geological instruction were developments in geological textbooks. Early instruction commonly involved the use of the lecturer's notes in preparation for classroom or public lecture. Comments regarding these efforts by Rogers (1835), Hitchcock (1855) and Simonds

(1879) will be made later.

Many of the older books and instructional materials presented theological viewpoints, this was to change rather radically as the century progressed. The nineteenth-century geology texts in America changed from what has been described as religious fundamentalism to secularism.

Before 1840 American students tended to rely chiefly on English publications, e.g., the scholarly writings of

Charles Lyell (1830-1857) in which many geologic processes were, more or less, placed in proper perspective, thereby setting standards for future literary offerings.

In 1837 Edward Hitchcock republished De la Beche's,

Researches in Theoretic Geology, and effective but small volume of 342 pages and possessing no illustrations. W.W.

Mather's, Elements of Geology for the use of Schools has been reported as the oldest American textbook, containing 55

122 pages of which seventeen pages were index and errata.

Apparently this volume was of some importance as a number of copies exhibited, pasted on the inside of the front cover, a commendation by-Benjamin Silliman dated

1834. Outlines of Geology 384 pages by J.L. Comstock and

Charles Lee's Elements of Geology, 375 pages, are two additional texts of this 1837-1839 period.

Edward Hitchcock's Elementary Geology was the standard reference in America for some twenty years.

Beginning in 1841, these next twenty years have often been referred to as the second period of American geological literature. During this period Elementary Geology ran to thirty editions, totalling some 424 pages. Three other publications all with the same title Elements of Geology by Samuel St. John, Justin R. Loomis, Alonzo Gray and C.B.

Adams along with A.M. Hillsides, A Familiar Compend of

Geology are also of this period. Perhaps, somewhat underrated, Fairchild says (1921, p. 495) : "The contents of these old books usually justify the modesty of their titles." They apparently did have some impact and served their purpose as instructional media for this period.

Illustrations are not only important but also essential to the literature of geology. Ebenezer Emmons's

Manual of Geology, published in 1860 although brief, some

297 pages, contained numerous illustrations. This may well have been one of the very first to use illustrations to 56 any extent.

James D. Dana's Manual- of Geology, first edition with 798 pages and 984 illustrations published in 1862, eclipsed all previous attempts at textbook production.

The geologists of the period simply were "brought up" on

Dana's Manual. Because of its unequaled importance and use for instruction in numerous institutions in the late

1800's, a typical outline from the 3rd edition (1880) appears in Appendix B. Perusal of these topics gives one some insight into what was considered worth teaching as well as the type of material that students as well as professionals were exposed to for a long time in their education as geologists. The need of a smaller text resulted in Dana's Text-Book published in 1863 and revised by W.N. Rice in 1897.

Rivaling Dana's texts and, perhaps, somewhat of more popular nature was Joseph LeConte's Elements of

Geology published first in 1878. He, too, produced a

Compend in 1884 because of the large demand for classroom use and popular reading. One of the outstanding features of LeConte's works was the profuse use of illustrations, particularly of the western part of the continent now receiving more and more attention by geologist and layman alike. Other volumes of lesser stature associated with the so-called "third period" (1860-1904) of textbook evolution in Araerican geological literature were; 57

The Earth and its Story^ Angelo Heilprin, 1896, 267 pp.

First Book in Geology, N.S. Shaler, 1884, 255 pp.

An Introduction to Geology, W.B. Scott, 1897, 573 pp.

Elementary Geology, R.S. Tarr, 1897, 499 pp.

Some more popular works or treatises were:

Chemical and Geological Essays, T. Sterry Hunt, 1875.

The Story of the Earth and M a n , J.W. Dawson, 1873.

Aspects of the Earth, N.S. Shaler, 1889.

Geological Sketches, Louis Agassiz, 1866.

Sketches of Creation, Alexander Winchell, 1870.

Others by Winchell were:

Sparks from a Geologist's Hammer, 1870.

World Life, or Comparative Geology, 1883.

Paralleling this phase of textbook development was an important development in journals. With the beginning of the Geological Society of America in 1888 and the appearance of the previously mentioned "American

Geologist", a major contribution and singularly in purpose to the dissemination of major developments in geology, a new epoch in American geology may be said to have begun.

This journal was founded by N.H. Winchell and continued for some thirty-six volumes terminating in 1905. "The

Journal of Geology", published first in 1893 by the

University of Chicago, also made major contributions to the geologic literature of this period.

The "recent" period (fourth) in this succession 58 of textbook evolution has been generally regarded as beginning somewhere around 1904 when T.C. Chamberlin and

R.D. Salisbury produced their three volumes containing some 2000 pages.

In summary the "big five" who dominated the textbook scene during the mid-to-latter nineteenth century were Hitchcock, Dana, LeConte, Chamberlin and Salisbury.

Their influence, not only found in their textbook contributions was, indeed, very substantial during this rapid period in the development and growth of geology and its instruction.

Previous reference has been made to a tendency toward secularization of geology textbooks in the United

States during this century. Wittmer (1967) believes that this was brought about essentially by the scientific progress of the period. He feels that geological progress during this hundred year span resulted from:

(1) systematic accumulation of data by observation;

(2) the influence and impact of the doctrine of

uniformitarianism;

(3) theories of glaciation, especially that of

continental ice sheets ;

(4) influence of the evolutionary theories as related

to organisms.

He recognized that early nineteenth-century textbooks reflected religious fundamentalist viewpoints. 59 stressing that geology did not conflict but complemented a literal interpretation of Christian doctrine.

Wittmer's study is very helpful in establishing

"points of contact between Christian revelation and geology". These, in turn, were to eventually influence the secularization of the textbooks. These "points of contact" refer to wherever geological evidence conflicts or supports the Christian ethic as revealed in the authorized King James version of the Bible. These he lists as:

(1) The age of the earth and the universe. (2) The formation of the earth and of the universe. (3) The fossil record as it bears upon the Mosaic days of creation. (4) The Noachic flood, diluvium, and the drift phenomena. (5) The creation or development of man and the length of time that the human species has been on earth. (6) The theory of the "special creation" of all organic species by divine fiat versus evolutionary development hypotheses. (7) The concept of an anthropomorphic deity who frequently intervenes in the affairs of men and nature contrary to the workings of natural law i.e., miracles and other "acts of Providence." (8) The fossil record versus the Book of Genesis on the subject of death. (9) Evidence of a "Divine Plan" in nature. (10) The ultimate end of the earth and of life upon it. Evidence in the texts which is pertinent to these issues has been classified and analyzed chronologically in four main chapters entitled The Deluge, The Days of Creation, Special Creations versus Development Theories, and God in Nature.

Wittmer effectively supports his thesis of increasing secularization in the character of the geology texts, especially in the latter days of the century, by 60 presenting "negative evidence." This simply takes the form of indicating issues formerly important enough to be included in early texts of no longer importance, and issues once treated with a theistic bias no longer receiving that attention.

A concluding chapter in which these changes occurring in geology texts are reflected in "light of total picture of secularization of learning in general" is very helpful in summarizing these significant events of the late 1800's. Wittmer also suggests a number of possible reasons for failure by some of the textbooks to reflect immediately the scientific advances. This was to be expected, however. A long-standing conflict, as existed between science and religion, requires time for resolution. The important point is that some progress had been made, the literature of the 1900's was soon to reflect the scientific attitude and advances of the times.

Reference to an unpublished manuscript of lecture notes acquired by the writer through the kindness of Dr.

Aurele La Rocque, Professor of Geology at The Ohio State

University, is appropriate to the consideration of the instructional literature of the period.

The notes were compiled by Ernest Haywood a student of Professor Frederic W. Simonds of the University of North Carolina in 1879 (1880). They comprise essentially 30 lectures, 151 pages (these have been 61

transcribed from Haywood's original notes). Plates I and II

of the original work are included for historical interest

and to illustrate the clarity and accuracy of Simond's

presentations. Dr. Simonds must have been one of those

untiring individuals, limited somewhat by periods of poor

health, but of extraordinary capacity during the good

times. He was associated at one time or another, with

Cornell University (received his Bachelor's Degree in 1875,

instructor in Paleontology, Economic Geology), University

of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Vice-Principal and

Principal of a city high school in San Jose, California,

University of California, University of Arkansas and the

University of Texas. For a short, strenuous period at the

University of Texas, Simonds taught classes in both geology

and biology. During and between these various university

assignments he managed and published field studies in

Arkansas, European study at Munich and Heidelberg, and

collected vital statistics on the mica industry of North

Carolina as a member of the staff of the Tenth Census of

1880. His association with a number of other well-known

geologists of the day, influence as a teacher, plus a

number of other credits, one will discover in reading his memoir. These all speak to the distinction that he held in

geological education in our Southern institutions. Two

paragraphs from a memorial on Professor Simonds (Deussen,

1941-42, pp. 193-200) are pertinent to the preceding 62

PLATE I

Title Page, Professor Simonds's Lectures

■ f s ^ o .

IJKYVÏÏRSSTY ÔT IfC.RlTH. tVVriOr-iWA.

' >

0 U T 1 . 1 N E ,V-

•>* fi-

s !' ' ' . I

I; GEW/'^AL GEOLOGY

. SirrijondSi P K . X)^

# # •

. . .:

'‘■Vi' f L icL. 63

PLATE II

Sample Page, Professor Simonds’s Lectures

^AAyr^ L ^ Lnji^ ~^àjL£- 0~iA<,.^ . '^jCCn^oC--' if- ^xroj^ÿx' ' ^ J L i r u T ^"^-C-cù d < n ' I / v ^ c ^ ' O n ' ^ j C L ^ -S-e^ Ôn'X^^:^u/J^y^ iK/yji^^y~v\^tStyù/ "AjSy^c^ r^H)'^^ n~ü~-^’->r

CLi^ey /^''â^ÿ^-'^CL.ùôa yCÜ'Æt.^Ky Q-£ü CC x 3 C ^ a / '^éy-tAJxi>' o-v-€yty L ^ jy 'A ^ ~r'c(y y'i'Th^Oç.

-6<^-c!e^^ ^kjC ^L'xja CL o u t x ^ < ^ ■ ■ U y i^ jL ù Z,h^ d b ( y ^ \ ^ y , ^ <â^trrT-n^

7(jLâ(X^à.jLtJX,^>^ f 'A x L ^ cÙ' CL^r-d-i/^ty' ^iyy\y/jfy)r'?^^^juù>~. M-e^^yn.>'L^ ^ L. ^ / <2^ y 'ô -ty dJHzyi/y: * \ ■/f ^ . ' ■' ^

z z 1

=r" ÆE5_t/ 64 remarks :

In his eventful career as Professor of Geology at the University of Texas, covering a period of fifty years, Professor Simonds has seen many generations of students come and go, and amongst them many men who have taken a leading part in the affairs of state and nation during the past four decades. His students likewise have included a number of men who have later made names for themselves as geologists, not to mention the numerous geologists now identified with the petroleum industry, a considerable number of who occupy leading positions as executives in this industry. Many of these men drew their early inspiration in the field of geology by listening to the lectures of Professor Simonds.

Deussen refers to his own personal experiences:

The present writer had the privilege of being intimately associated with him for a number of years, first as a student of geology, and later as a member of the Geological Faculty, under him. During this period of intimate association he had the opportunity of knowing at first hand his sterling character. Uniformly kind, generous, and considerate, and rarely out of humor, his main interests during these active years were his students and the University. The opening days of the Fall sessions, with a new generation of students, were to him a new inspiration each and every year. Among the writer's most pleasant recollections of his student days was the glee and delight he took in suddenly quizzing a student whom he caught napping or otherwise engaged during the course of one of his lectures. Likewise to him the University was a living and sacred thing, whose interest and advancement always came first. I am sure his career will leave an imprint on the University of Texas not soon to be erased or forgotten.

Evaluating Haywood's and Deussen's account of

Simond's reputation as a geologist-educator and in revieiving Simond's lecture notes, one of the most striking things that can be said of this 1879-80 manuscript is that it is amazingly modern in its content. 65

Many of its lessons could be carried, with modest updating, into today's classrooms and recited with confidence. An outline of these lectures in General Geology is listed in an imposing bibliography of 37 publications by Frederic

William Simonds in the Deussen Memorial (Deussen, 1941-42, p. 197).

The development of the pétrographie microscope, in fact, improvements in microscopy in general, were leading forces not only in the awakening of instruction in geology but also were of tremendous influence on the level and quality of research possible. Petrography has undergone a variety of meanings and usages, but is accepted generally as dealing with rocks based on an investigation (chiefly microscopic) of mineral, textural, and chemical characteristics. To accomplish this the perfection of special apparatus as well as the "know-how" in its application was necessary. About 1876 petrography, as such., attracted the geological world and acquired a devoted group among the younger geologists. Credits to

Nicol (1828-31), Sorby (1850-58), and the untiring efforts of Zirkel and Rosenbusch must be made not only for their contributions in developing new techniques but also for their extraordinary achievements accomplished in research and proselyting. It must be remembered that more than half the publications in this area, and of a chiefly descriptive nature, originated in Germany between 1876 and 66

1888. "Germany was the home of its (petrography) adoption and either the laboratory of Zirkel or Rosenbusch was the

Mecca of students of petrography and the fountainhead of contribution to the science" (Mathews, 1926, p. 34).

It is clear that the development of petrography in

America received its impetus from the influence of the

Germans. This was accomplished both by the literature from Europe and in the results of many of our students picking up these techniques and procedures in study abroad and training in German laboratories. From 1877, for approximately sixteen years, American students were preparing themselves under German tutelage: Cross (1877) II at Gottingen later at Leipzig, Haines, Iddings, F.D. Adams,

Wadsworth, Hobbs, and others, in Rosenbusch's laboratory.

If Kemp at Munich, J.F. Williams at Gottingen and Washington at Leipzig. Others studied elsewhere. This is not to say that this interest in preparation abroad was only for this brief sixteen year period, younger American petrographers continued seeking some training, long or short periods, at one of the German institutions for some time to come. However, from 1876-1893 was a period of fervor, and this famous group was to exert its influence as petrography began to take an important position among the earth sciences. The period .76 to 1888 is often referred to as the training and preparation years for the future leaders of American petrography. 67

A new tool of major significance to the development of a rapidly developing science, no longer simply a megascopic approach, is now available to attack the more difficult questions in interpreting the composition, life histories and geological significance of the crystalline rocks.

Mathews reports (1926, p. 51):

When in 1883-84 a pétrographie laboratory was opened at the Johns Hopkins University under the enthusiastic leadership of G.H. Williams, just arrived from Germany, systematic instruction in petrography had not yet been introduced in otimer leading American universities: Harvard offered formal instruction in petrography for the first time in 1886 under Wolff; Columbia in 1891 under Kemp, though informal instruction in the use of rock sections may have been given by Julien between 1885 and 1890; Yale offered formal instruction in 1892 by Pirsson, but a certain amount of informal instruction had been given by Hawes in 1873-74. In Wisconsin R.D. Irving and C.R. Van Hise, who had made themselves conversant with the principles and methods of the science, were using pétrographie methods in the investigation of Lake Superior rocks and were teaching the science to a small group of devotees.

Two of the most masterful presentations, by early founders of American petrography, are the classical studies of granites in New Hampshire by Hawes (1878-1882) and.J.F. Williams's Volume 2 of the Geological Survey of

Arkansas,,. The Igneous Rocks of Arkansas (1890).

John Hopkins University dese rves the principal recognition for first offering, to any degree, these opportunities in petrography to American students. In the relatively short period of G.H. Williams tenure with the 68

University (1883-1894), he attracted some twenty-four

petrographers to the institution, nine received their

doctorates under his guidance. These included Bayley,

Haworth, Hobbs, Lawson, Keyes, Grant, Bascom, Grimsley

and Mathews. F.D. Adams, H.C. Lewis, J.V. Lewis, G.P.

Merrill, Prindle and Bain were other prominent

petrographers who worked for a brief period with Williams.

By 1926 this science, barely begun in 1876,

reached a respectable maturity. American textbooks (by

Iddings, Johannsen, Winchell, Findlay, Pirsson), vastly

improved techniques and equipment perfected by American petrographers (Dwight, Johannsen, Larsen, F.E. Wright,

among others) and a curriculum designed to attract a host

of devotees interested in both research and teaching

characterize the development of petrography through

roughly a fifty-year span.

Turning again to trends towards specialization

in this latter part of the century, one finds

supportative data in studying the progress of certain institutions in graduate research leading to the

conferring of advanced degrees in the various fields of geology. Although it is not the purpose of this paper to study graduate outcomes, it can be assumed that they reflect progress made in geological education during the period as well as aiding in evaluating this progress.

A partial analysis of the Chronics' inclusive 69

bibliography of advanced degrees, some 11,000 entrees,

is very helpful in this regard (Chronic, B.J. and Chronic,

H .f 1957) . By partial analysis is meant a careful reading

of thesis topics for doctoral and master's degrees for the period ranging from 1876-1903 for 4152 entrees, and

categorizing this information as to institution and

specialty of geological discipline. It was determined

that 71 advanced degrees, 53 doctorates and 18 masters, were conferred with essentially 78% from ten major

institutions, the remaining 22% from a variety of schools indicated by the writer as "Others", some offering only

1 degree. These ten major institutions included: Yale,

Harvard, Cornell, Columbia, Princeton, Wisconsin, Johns

Hopkins, Stanford, Chicago and California (Berkeley).

Most of the degrees conferred by the "others" group were at the Master's level.

Table 2 lists the discipline specialties with the number of degrees granted in each category.

TABLE 2

Doctorates Masters

Regional Geology 12 8 1 Paleontology 13 1 Petrology 10 4 2 Economic Geology 7 1 Mineralogy 5 1 Glacial Geology 3 2 Geomorphology 2 - (non-glacial) Other Specialties 1 1

53 18 70

1 Of the thirteen doctorates in Paleontology, nine were in invertebrate studies, while four were vertebrate in nature. The Master's degree was in vertebrate paleontology.

2 Of the seven doctorates in Economic Geology five involved investigations of non-metals, and two of metals. The Master's degree was a study of non-metals.

Considering the total number of degrees, excluding technical degrees, granted by American institutions in the latter part of the nineteenth century and early part of the

1900's, geology shows hardly a "trace".

Mathews and Little (1920, p. 233) indicate that between 1895-1914, 292,000 degrees were conferred at the

A.B., B.S. and Ph.D. level with geologists numbering 658 or 0.22%. For the A.M., M.S. and Ph.D., 36,950 degrees were granted with geologists taking 313 or 0.70%. During the same period 7160 took the Ph.D. and D.Sc. including

237 or 3.3% with geological doctorates. "The increased percentage among the doctors suggest that those who contribute to the development of the science are generally those with the highest training". Again this tendency toward specialization exhibited very direct effects on the awakening and rejuvenation taking place in the earth sciences. The atmosphere created by those more highly trained as masters and doctors was to bring many positive influences on geological education at the undergraduate level.

Mathews and Little (1920, p. 235) observed that: 71

there is a general impression that most of the candidates for advanced degrees are now coming from the well equipped undergraduate departments of the larger-degree-granting universities, and that this practice is increasing.

Apparently this had not been the case for some time.

Indications were that two-thirds of the masters received their degrees from their alma mater. More than half of the doctors came to larger institutions from other places. In the case of the masters staying on, this may have been due to some persuasion to continue as "student assistants", and also to improved curricula permitting more opportunities for specialized studies. The doctoral migrations were due to established and well equipped larger institutions also, in the writer's opinion, the desire to study in varying geological settings.

There were some exceptions to this general statement for these doctoral "migrations". These included

California with 77%; Indiana 66%; Cornell 64%; Princeton

62% and Harvard with 54% of the doctors who had taken their bachelor's degree at the same university.

Wentworth (1933, p. 434) lists the first seven

American doctorates in geology granted over the twelve years commencing in 1867 when Yale University granted the very first American Geological Doctorate. These distinguished seven were; 72

Name University Year

William North Rice(1845-1928) Yale 1867 Edward Thomson Nelson(7-1897) Yale 1869 Henry Shaler Williams(1847-1918) Yale 1871 Nathaniel Southgate Shaler(Sc.D.) (1841-1906) Harvard 1875 Edward Salisbury Dana(1849-) Yale 1876 Charles Whittlessey Foote Cornell 1877 Edward Raymond Benton Harvard 1878

An important study regarding the status and development of geological education across the nation appears in the 1896 report by T.C. Hopkins. Having received replies from a circular sent out by the Bureau of Education to different institutions, reviewed college catalogs, circulars, personal correspondence, interviews, and special contributions from selected geologists,

Hopkins compiled a 53 page survey of geology in higher education in the United States.

Although there were a number of difficulties in compiling these kinds of information, e.g., tabulating the data for the relatively modern branches of petrography and physiography problems arose in distinguishing formalized instruction in these specialties from partial courses incorporated in general geology and mineralogy.

In any event, especially for this period, each description of the institutions from Alabama to Wyoming offers some insight into the status of geological education at this time.

Hopkins (1896, p. 820) adequately qualifies his 73 position and some of these difficulties in his brief introduction to the paper. He indicates, among other points to be gained from these general curricular descriptions, that there is "the wide difference in the number amd strength of the departments of geology in

States so closely allied in position, size, population, and wealth". He cites in New York the teaching of geology occurred, in twenty-two institutions with separate departments in nine, these being relatively strong departments. While in Pennsylvania, with geology taught in twenty-four colleges, there was only one department, and that was in one of the strong high schools in Philadelphia.

He also indicates that in many places geology v/as combined with other disciplines, the most frequent being biology- There was also some frequency with chemistry and mathematics noted.

A point, among others that he made, which brought a noticeably pessimistic critique by Frederic W. Simonds

(1896;, pp. 497-498) as to the state of nineteenth-century geological education, was that "in a large number of the small colleges instruction in all the Natural Sciences, including geology, is given by one instructor."

Perusal of this report by Hopkins is a must for students of nineteenth-century geological education.

After commenting, in prose style and to varying degree and depth, about the specific colleges and universities in the 74

United States; he follows these descriptions with eighteen pages of tabulated information including the following for each state; Name of the school; where geology is taught; location; name of present instructor; where not a separate department, geology is combined with; by whom first taught; date when first taught; time given to general geology, mineralogy, paleontology, petrography and economic geology; estimated value and number of instruments, maps, minerals, rocks, fossils, volumes in library.

The following four tables from Hopkins are included for purposes of summary:

TABLE 3

Summary of Statistics of Colleges in which Geology is Taught (1893-1894)

Unlvcr* UiiiViT* III G rad 11- In Gradu* M'tllull uto sitica which nio and cot* it Id a 8tU- and C'd it U a fttii- : ' State. Irqc;» In d*-iil:; III suite.- Icpca in Ei'iia- dcnti in WiMCit nito dc* gcul'.^y ivliicli rato de­geology gnoloijy • part" in goolo-ry part- ill lA nient. lSo.i-01. Id incut. 180-;-01. taught. ! ■ ■ (auglit.

^ •. Alnbama...... 6 1 ■ 8 1 4 1 5 7 2 12 .T# r ..##..#####. 2 3 7 2>'oiv ZStexIco...... I ’ Drbnaro...... Ô 8 3 Di.itricl of Cotuiiibla .... 4 .1 2 4 3 30 J a 121 1 9 20 3 13 2 13 1 8 1 0 17 19 IS 1 10 1 9 trtali...... 1 1 5 2 4 i g 1 0 1 16 4 11 8 11 3 1 . ' ; * • • Slirhlgan...... JO 1 4 Wiacondin...... 7 4 . .. Alhincant.»...... 1 "Wyoming...... 4 * 10 ■ 1 4 Total...... 376 51 3

(Hopkins, 1896, p. 870) 75

TABLE 4

Number of Colleges Beginning the Subject of Geology in Different Years from 1845-1895

i Col. ■ Col. ; Cnl. : Tear. Year. lojm. ; Tear, legv#. ' i ' 1B43...... ; 2 lan...... 18^...... 3 1&4II...... 1 ...... • 5 1817...... ? i 1648....a...... 1849 ...... 2 ■’ n IWO...... •• IfJM...... 6 183 1...... 3 1* ...... 12 183 2...... 5 1S78...... 1 1 ..... - 11 183 3...... 3 18:12...... 8 1831...... ic'-i;...... 1 ...... *.... . 2i: Ir03...... 4 . 1833..... V- li 11 1850 ..... ?.. IfilD...... 1893 (2 monrbs).. 3 1857...... li-,0...... J3o3...... "I: (Hopkins, 1896, p. 871)

Prior to 1845 there were thirty-one colleges and universities teaching geology. A new institution added geology in 1804, one in 1807, and one in 1817. They then tended to develop at the rate of one/year between 1820 and 1845 with exceptions of none in 1822, 1824, 1833 and

1834. In 1825, 1826, 1835, 1836, 1839, and 1843 there were two each year and three in 1837. Results of the

Civil War are recognized for the years 1861, 1862, 1863, as well as the effects of the financial panic of latter part of the century (1870's) and for a few years to follow.

It is clear from Hopkins that the majority of institutions began geology during the last quarter of the nineteenth century, with a surge in the 1890's. 76

TABLE 5

List of the Presidents of Colleges Who Taught Geology, Name of College, and the Branches Taught by Each.

2Tamo of prt^tdcnt. yamo of college. Slate, etc. Braochea tniigLt.

Tbeo.B.Coniitock Fnircrsitrof Arizona..; Arizona... ' Geology nnd mining ■ W. S..Tiihn>on..... I !>fiiiintnin C»*!l'*sc- Arknc>:id.... ' >Tataral :«cieacc. • jobn Mc L e a n . . < Thn i'n-.HliytvrinaC'uilegi* of tlio Colorado..... ' ■* I SoalhTvcdl. I ’'B.r.Koon9...... ! Stf»rr9 .Vgrirnltural College... Connecticut . Geology and zoologs*. • C.0.Stabb3 Bon'dun College... Georg Geology. l*hilo.op;ty, chemistry, aatruuv» my. "Xmncmt Gordon...... Metliodist Fpi.'^ropal College..--’.....do ...... General srience. ffed Latz . Wartburg Xcacbcra' Seminary..: lu^ra...... Geology and miuerul* cg>*. X.G.JLd]£iD9on...... X of Orleans Vniveri-ity — .1 Louisiana...... Gcologj’ and mental ami moral ph;lo»«>< phy. C.SomerT. Fuller...... T\'orcestcrrolj*ttîcImîcInstitute.j Masiachusctts.... Geology and mineral* ogy. " • • lLF.\rad:»trorth.. Micliignn Mining Scbool...... | Michigan ...... GcoIogj*and mining. Slicpard (acting Drury College.hlls^otiri...... Geology and biology. • pre.Hldeut). SLM.Bick..... Missouri Wesleyan College .....L.l..do...... Geology and philoso* I ■ * phy. 3Ï. V.lXKnox . Bed Itirer Talley Tnircrsity-.-.J Xorth Dakota .... History and natural Hcieiiee. ■Arthur Grabowekl... DcRanco College ...... __ | Ohio...... ^faihor.iatics, modem languages, and oat* oral seii-nce. .Theodore Sterling. Kenyon College -...... !... do . Geology, physics, and botauv. Franklin and ^FarsiiaU Collegerenusvlrnnia... . Jumes Woodrow*.... South Carolina... ami bicloi:*. . Wm . M. Llackhnm .... Pierre Tniver^ity ...... South Dakota..... Geoin^'y, mineralogy, and pbrsieal georra* phy. JobnW.Uancher... Black Hills College ...... Geology, physiology, . chemistry, aud Uiol* ogy. Geology and mineral* ogy. James T. C«K>ter.... Washington College ...... Tennessco..... Gxulogy, mineralogy. Greek, mental aud moral seieiiee. Grology and mineral*

. Calvin M.Stewart..... Whitworth College...... - ......

(Hopkins, 1896, p. 871)

TABLE 6

Ladies Teaching Geology in Colleges in the United States

Name. Collcgo. Location. Bram hcs taught. .

MItia K va J. Koot.... Winter Park,Fla.... Fnnch, history, and natural sciciu e. MIsaUiithlT Haldriim. .Sclma-Unlrcrslly...... ?ol uin, Ala*...... N’atur.ij sciuuco. * Misa Mary E. \Votnl.... Oskalno-ta College.... Oskaloosa, low.a.... (Jciilugy,botany, toology. Miss Flora E Strout.... Miirg:m Cullcgu (colored) Baltimiirc, 31d...... (J* ology aud a.itruiMiiny. 2lisa Sarah V. du Nor* Wellesley Cullugc.... Wellesley, Mass..... Mineralogy and lllbol* matiilin. ogy. 1 Miss Florence Bascom. . Ohio Stato University... Columbus. Ohio..... Pilrogrnphy.clr. Mias M. J, Etismau.. XJulvecsity of Omaha*.. Bellevue, Xcbr...... Geology, physics, cbcm* • . * * Istry.

(Hopkins, 1896, p. 872) 77

Comparing sximmary figures in Hopkins (1896) and

those of Mathews and Little (1920, p. 237), they clearly

support the rapidly growing status of geology in the late

1800's - early 1900's. For example 49 more colleges

offered geology in 1920 than in 1894, an increase of 13%.

During the same period separate departments increased by

115% with 60 more institutions advancing geology to department status. Some colleges, in approximately 16 states, dropped geology as a subject; but no cases of dropping separate departments were reported.

Mathews and Little (1920, p. 237), consider the dropping of the subject as, "a healthy condition and may well indicate merely greater frankness on the part of many small colleges. " It should also be noted that the numbers in the report by Hopkins for separate departments might be suspect to interpretation based on his estimate of what constituted a department in the fullest sense.

Brooks (1912, pp. 19-48) presents a sometimes confusing account of the development of geology, with particular attention to applied geology, especially in the late 1800's. This is understandable as the line separating "pure" and "applied" is often a fine one.

Brooks (1912, p. 20) for purposes of a definition says,

"applied geology may be defined as the science which utilizes the methods and principles of pure geology to supply the material needs of man." Finding criteria to 78 substantiate that an increased interest in applied geology contributed to an awakening interest both in instruction and the kind of instruction in the earth sciences in the late 1800's is somewhat difficult. One may argue that this can be found in the increasing number of publications by the U.S. Geological Survey alone on applied geology as compared to its total literature published. For example, the average of economic papers for the decade ending in 1895 was 11% of the total number of publications, this jumped to 71% in the following decade. There is another problem in classification as

Brooks indicates. Obviously items included in these figures quoted above may include some articles of pure science. He lists the geologic folios as examples. The important point, indicated not only by the work of the

Federal organization, but also by the State Surveys and many universities, is a marked tendency toward practical problems. "Everywhere geologic research of practical problems is receiving more and more support, both publicly and privately" (Brooks, 1912, p. 22).

Following the Civil War, a time favorable for the development of applied geology as the nation began to recoup itself industrially, the Federal government and many State Surveys re-opened projects to explore the west and, in most cases detailed, this included mapping of mineral deposits. Discounting an interruption of some 79 of these activities by the period of post-war financial instability quite remarkable results were obtained.

Geologic mapping and accurate mensuration based on improved field techniques, characterized what might be called "the earliest general attempts in this country to apply engineering methods to geologic problems."

It should be noted that especially in the United

States, it appears to have been that most advances in pure and applied sciences both progressed in more or less direct proportion. It might be said that this discipline is one in which the future progress of each depended upon the other.

Shaler (1895, p. 325) in his Presidential Address to the Geological Society of America entitled, "Relations of Geologic Science to Education," concludes that geology has "two distinct points of contact with society— that of instruction and that of economic affairs." To Shaler this meant ennobling men, "giving adequate perspective for their lives" as well as "to show the resources which these ages have accumulated in the earth for the service of the enlarged man."

In his discussion, "Geology as a Part of a College

Curriculum", Williams (1893, pp. 37-46) employs a clearly practical theme. He asserts that "geology is one of the sciences which most men will at once classify as among the practical sciences." He lists the subject as dealing with 80 coal, iron, silver, gold, tin, lead, building stone, sand, clay, petroleum and natural gas. He considered these as materials essential to a modern civilization, and "a knowledge of them and their modes and places of occurrence is one of the requisities of an education, either from the practical or the liberal point of view."

Summarizing the historical survey by Brooks of applied geology (1912, p. 45), with particular emphasis on its progress in the United States, the following may be said:

1. A great deal of modern geology originated in

applied science.

2. Man's attempts to solve problems of material

welfare gave impetus and stimulation to general

geologic thought.

3. The most rapid advancement in geology took place

when some practical end was in sight.

4. If divorced from industry, the science became

more speculative.

5. Past and present geologists derived a great deal

of satisfaction and inspiration from being of help

to mankind and adding to his material needs.

In America McClure, Rodgers, Owen, Leslie, Orton,

Eaton, Whitney, Cook, Dawson and King, among others, exhibited considerable concern for the industrial application of their discipline. 81

The elder Silliman, referring to his own

background in geology said, "I learned in the mining districts how and what to observe." The many

explorations carried out by Dana can be considered as

ventures into applied geology. James Hall spent a good part of his early career receiving encouragement and

stimulation studying practical problems. "An enumeration

of the leading geologists of the present generation will,

I think, show that the larger part have given much

attention to the material application of geology" (Brooks,

1912, p. 46).

Geologists, from time immemorial, have collected

and cataloged field specimens for study and display; some

cabinets, e.g., Silliman's contributions to Yale, of

substantial quality and quantity are reported in the

collections of institutions from the earliest days of the

science and its instruction.

However, a landmark worthy of rightful recognition in the awakening of interest in and affecting the teaching of geology from the mid-1800's to the present, was the work of Henry A. Ward and the famous Ward's Natural

Science Establishment of Rochester, New York. Ward had been often referred to as the "Museum Builder." In 1861 at the age of twenty-seven, as an avid explorer and collector, he contributed one of the finest and most comprehensive collections of geology in America to the 82

University of Rochester.

By 1865 his interest in extensive travel and

collecting led to the creation of his Natural Science

Establishment. Many universities, colleges, and lower

schools have received geological and paleontological

specimens of unusual variety and quality for over 100

years. Ward's still serves as one, anf for some items

the only, of the chief sources for geological and

zoological materials in this country.

Fairchild (1933, p. 50) states that "more than

any other individual Henry A. Ward promoted general

interest in geology by the distribution and display of visible objects." There were private and university

collections of minerals in the 1860's and 1870's housed

chiefly by the scientific organizations in Philadelphia,

Boston and New York. When Ward's came along this promoted

the distribution of many materials to greater numbers of

interested amateurs and professionals alike that, heretofore, were locked away from ready display and use.

For example, the "Catalogue of Casts" are of unusual

character and many were practically impossible to obtain

as type specimens. This was used to a considerable extent by many students as an elementary textbook in paleontology.

Fairchild notes (1932, p. 48) that the "Ward exhibit at the World's Fair in Chicago became the nucleus of the

Field Museum." 83

To further illustrate the "Establishment" as the

forerunner of the Museum, it served not only for distribution and display but also as a kind of training

school for geologists and naturalists alike.

Grove K. Gilbert, "its first alumnus", in a

Geological Society of America Memorial of Edwin E. Howell

(1912, pp. 30-31) says of Ward;

In the year 1861 the late Henry A. Ward then professor of geology in the University of Rochester, erected on the college campus a building which he called Cosmos Hall and which was devoted to the assemblage and preparation of scientific material for museums of natural history. The establishment thus instituted grew and developed, and it still flourishes. Its work was performed largely by young men of congenial tastes, who there acquired the practical experience which commended them later to the trustees of larger responsibilities. It thus served incidentally as a training school in the natural sciences and especially in certain branches connected with museums. Among its graduates are Frederic A. Lucas, director of the American Museum of Natural History: William T. Hornaday, director of the New York Zoological Park; Charles H. Townsend, director of the New York Aquarium; F.C. Baker, curator of the Chicago Academy of Sciences; William M. Wheeler, professor of economic entomology at Harvard University, and Henry L. Ward, director of the Milwaukee Public Museum, and in addition to these the writer, who ranks himself somewhat proudly as senior alumnus. This was Howell's school, his real school He entered it in 1865, at the age of 21, and took his diploma - so to speak - in 1872.

The first issue of "Ward's Natural Science

Bulletin", 1881, included a brief historical sketch of the

"Establishment" and a still more extensive list of its alumni. Among this group were James Orton, a friend of 84 Ward's at Williams College; Grove K. Gilbert; Franklin

C. Hill, eventually a professor at Princeton; Dr. W.S.

Barnard, professor of Zoology at Cornell University;

George Wilde, who later studied with Huxley; and

Professor W.B. Barrows, later to become head of the

Zoology department of Michigan Agricultural College.

Ward's influence among the naturalists of his time has been summarized by his grandson (1948, p. 211),

"it almost seemed as if Professor Ward sent as many men to museums and colleges as he did specimens." Fortunately a complete account of the personality, as well as the contributions of Professor Henry A. Ward, was first published in 19 33 written by his grandson, Roswell H.

Ward. It was also made available in a second printing in 1948 by the Rochester Historical Society Publications.

Professor Fairchild in the Introduction to the 1933 edition (Ward, 1933, p. xv) refers to the work in glowing terms, as he does the man, praising its "historical and sociological value relating to the latter half of the nineteenth century."

In the author's preface, Roswell Ward indicates that the biography presented an account of the personal and professional life of his distinguished grandfather, and that this "was intermingled with and influenced by the far-reaching changes which took place in the natural sciences during his lifetime." He indicated that one 85 finds within this volume the consideration of some of the conflicts existing between science and religion at this time, new concepts of the origins of man and earth, the introduction of natural science teaching into all levels on the educational scene, the importance of the science museum as a principal medium for natural science education, development of museum technology and natural science as a business venture.

A favorite subject of Professor Ward was that of meteorites. He is credited with having made the world's largest collection. Roswell Ward also cites (1948, p. xvii) that in the book one discovers that this was also the time when the "awakening of scientific and popular interest in meteorites, our only long established material link with the mysteries of interstellar space" took place.

Special reference to the extensive collection of the papers of Henry Augustus Ward will be found in

Appendix C (Ward, 1948, p. 288).

Thus as a result of a number of significant forces and events, instruction in the earth sciences received considerably more attention and developed rapidly during the late nineteenth century. Concern will now be focused on the selected colleges and universities in the United

States where many of these events affecting this newly awakened interest in instruction took place. CHAPTER III

SELECTED MAJOR INSTITUTIONS TYPIFYING

LATE NINETEENTH-CENTURY INSTRUCTION

IN THE EARTH SCIENCES

As remarked in the Introduction to this

dissertation, these institutions have been selected and

categorized chiefly upon the offering of programs in

geology of sufficient sophistication and advanced level

to merit the granting of a doctorate, implying established

undergraduate programs.

Their descriptions are characterized by variety

in curricula, increase in research activities, use of new

and rapidly developing equipment, emphasis on field and

laboratory investigations and the presence of geologist-

educators.

The roster of universities offering creditable

programs in geology also includes other outstanding

universities of the time. Harvard, Columbia, Cornell,

Michigan are among these leaders. Not to ignore these

institutions, but for the practical limitations of this

study, Yale, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and

Chicago are chosen to illustrate the educational 86 87 activities in geology of the major universities during

the late nineteenth century.

Some commentaries are more detailed than others,

this is based generally on the availability and content

of resources.

Birthplace of Geological Instruction In America- Yale University

To begin at the beginning, "the teaching of

geology in America began at Yale" (Walton, 1963, p. 7).

It was in 1802 when the president of Yale College

appointed the young Benjamin Silliman to a Professorship of Chemistry and Natural History. Natural History, per se, was not a recognized academic discipline in America at this point in time. However, for this period and a number of years to follow, often what ever geology was taught or

lectures presented came under this heading.

An interesting aside to this question of the beginnings of this science in America, comes in a personal communication from Professor Alonzo W. Quinn, Professor of Geology at Brown University in reference to a letter that he received from a Mrs. Ida Lewis, secretary to

Professor Frondel of Harvard, in which she states, "What may have been the first formal lectures on natural history in general, and mineralogy in particular, in an American college appear to have been given at Rhode Island College

(now Brown University) in 1786 and 1787 by Benjamin 88

Waterhouse." Professor Quinn merely passes this on as a

point of information. He states that "I do not know the

source of the above information."

Jensen's paper, "One Hundred and Fifty Years of

Geology at Yale" (1952, pp. 625-635) outlines these

beginnings at Yale and the enormous influence of Silliman.

In any number of ways, as Schuchert indicates (1918, p.

51), Silliman:

Spread the knowledge in popular lectures throughout the Eastern States, graduated many a student in the sciences, making of some of them professional teachers and geologists, provided all with a journal wherein they could publish their research, organized the first geological society, and through his students, the first official geological surveys, and by his kind words and acts, fostered, and held together American scientific men for fifty years.

Figure 4 (Jensen, 1952, p. 629) presents

schematically the general development and trends toward

specialization in geologic instruction during a hundred

and fifty year period at Yale. It illustrates rather well

the blossoming in faculty and curricular offerings during

the late 1800's, in preparation for the major thrust of

the early 1900's.

Certainly Silliman's most distinguished student,

successor and incidentally son-in-law, was James Dwight

Dana. He succeeded Silliman as the only Professor of

Natural History at Yale in 1850 at which time, it has been

reported, that the beginnings of a department took place e. B. L0NGW6LL ® ^''“ CTuR e INSTRUCTION o-ROEStW OF GEOLOGY AT YALE C. 0. DU Sir 2INVERTEBRATEZ&' PALEONTOLOGY C£.BEEgH£R 1602-1952 O. C. MARSH e.. R.-Y>, L E .u m .g______PALEOBOTANY R. S. LULL VERTEBRATE (PROFESSORIAL E. LEWIS— J.CjREQORY PALEONTOLOGY RANK ONLY) PLEISTOCENE R E FLINT GEOLOGY H. E. GREGORY ---- GEOCEou._(mor® B. SILLIMAN E. HUNTINGTON «Olo J. D. DANA Gy H.S. WILLIAMS A BUWALOA

J^^URVIM K.C.HEALO fl. M.~BATEMAH ECONOMIC GEOLOGY L. V. PIRSSON PETROLOGY S.W. HAWES A. KNOPF M.S.WALTON a petrography E. S. DANA 0. J. B R U S H M, S. L. PENFfELD N, W. E. FORD E.V-ARD- C. H. WARREN O.S. SWITZER H. WINCHELL

'I 1800 1880 1900

Figure 4

(J e n s e n , 1952, p. 629)

00 VO 90 with Professor Dana in charge. By the time of his death in 1895, Yale had added seven professors to its geology faculty which some have referred to as the rival of any during its time. These included Dana's son, Edward

Salisbury Dana, G.J. Brush, S.L. Penfield, L.V. Pirsson,

H.S. Williams, C.E. Beecher and O.C. Marsh.

Their contributions towards specialization and increased variety in the geological offerings at Yale are presented in Figure 4. Opportunity for study and research in six-eight areas of specialization were included in the following curricular programs by 1900: General Geology,

Stratigraphy and Invertebrate Paleontology, Vertebrate

Paleontology, Palëobotany, Mineralogy, Petrology and

Petrography. Jensen's diagram lists faculty of

Professorial rank only. Actually Yale had eleven faculty involved in instruction during the last twenty-five years of the century.

There is some question as to when the specific designation of 'department' for geology took place at

Yale. The following is apparently the most recent and reliable indication:

The next year, 1866-67, the Governing Board established a new department of study, under the title, 'Course in Natural History and Geology,' in which 'Geology or Botany may be made the leading study in place of Laboratory Practice in Zoology.' This'new section' of the School, as it was termed in the programme of studies of that date, was the result of an 91

'increasing demand for special instruction in these departments of science,' beyond what was offered in the older courses of study, (Chittenden, 1928, p. 424),

Yale holds the distinction of granting the first

American doctorate in geology, the tenth Ph.D. by the

University, in 1867, a time when its faculty was represented by three members and when General Geology,

Vertebrate Paleontology and Mineralogy were its major offerings. This first doctorate was awarded to William

North Rice for his dissertation on "The Darwinian Theory of the Origin of the Species." Of the first seven doctorates conferred in geology in America, four were from Yale during the years 1867-1876. Petrology and

Petrography increased the curricular offerings during this time.

What can be said of this famous assemblage of geologists at Yale from 1875-1900 especially in terms of major contributions affecting the educational scene in geology at the University? Their memoirs are voluminous.

Certain items are noteworthy, however. G.J. Brush's 1874 edition of his Manual of Determinative Mineralogy with an Introduction on Blowpipe Analysis as an aid in identification of minerals. This became an important text in as much as the description of rocks and minerals was the basis for geological studies. The manual was later enlarged by S.L. Penfield. More will be said of the 92

Danas later. G.W. Hawes has been referred to by L.V.

Pirsson, his successor, as "the earliest of the petrographers in this country" (1918, p. 228). Although

Pirsson's specialty was petrology (he was one of the

"famous four" - Cross, Iddings, Pirsson, Washington), and most contributions were in this field, he began teaching some physical geology in 1893. The importance is that this led to the publication in 1915 of the first

Yale Physical Geology and Historical Geology textbooks.

One of the most colorful of these early "greats" at Yale was Othniel Charles Marsh. He was appointed as

Professor of Paleontology in 1866 having received two degrees at Yale and a doctorate at Heidelberg. Jensen

(1952, p. 631) comments on the persuasive abilities of

Marsh. One incident of interest was the completion of thé famous Peabody Museum of Natural History at Yale in

1876. Marsh was Mr. George Peabody's "favorite" nephew.

The appointment of a Professor of Paleontology introduced

"Organic Geology" as a specialty. Jensen also notes

(1952, p. 631) "although the phrase "organic geology" seems rather unusual, it is of interest to note that L.V.

Pirsson occupied the position of Professor of Inorganic

Geology while instructing in petrology, petrography, and physical geology."

Some insight into the character of Marsh can be seen in Walton's (1963, p. 21) description of the first 93

Yale Student Scientific Expedition to the West leaving

New Haven in 1870 under Marsh's leadership. Each "arrived with a brace of trusty pistols and the all-essential knife, as well as the geological hammer and appliances of science." The expedition returned in December "having discovered some of the richest fossil localities in the world, broken trail into much unexplored country, often in danger of attack from hostile Indians, 'flirted with twenty-two daughters of Brigham Young in a box at the theatre in Salt Lake City', and crossed into California.

'Buffalo Bill' Cody was one of their guides." None of this group became geologists. George Bird Grinnell later become well known in the field of American Conservation.

One member was Eli Whitney, grandson of the inventor. For the rest, the lure of exploration and the adventurous

Marsh attracted them to the rigors of the West.

Henry Shaler Williams taught general historical geology from the 1890's to 1904. He was a distinguished scientist and teacher, originator of the Sigma Xi Society and later chaired the Department of Geology at Cornell

University.

Of considerable interest in a region so abundant with fossils is that a Professor of Invertebrate

Paleontology and Stratigraphy, C.E. Beecher, was not appointed until about 1890. He served in this capacity until his death in 1904, his successor was the famous 94

Charles Schuchert.

The field of Paleobotany, became important at the

end of the century with the arrival of G.R. Wieland,

acquiring a distinguished reputation throughout the world

during his over fifty-five year stay at Yale. Jensen

(1952, p. 632) anecdotally reports, "when the King (then

Crown Prince) of Sweden visited New Haven in 1926, he

spent almost all of his time with Wieland discussing the

letter's fine collection of cycadeoids, much to the disappointment of the Welcoming Committee."

Edward Salisbury Dana, son of J.D. Dana, became

Curator of Mineralogy in 1874, taught mineralogy for most of the late 1800's, and with some aid from his father

"entirely rewrote" and published in 1892 the sixth edition of J.D. Dana's, "The System of Mineralogy and

Crystallography." This was to become "one of the first internationally recognized scientific treatises by an

American" (Walton, 1963, p. 7).

A striking illustration of the profound influence

James Dwight Dana made on late nineteenth-century geology,

indeed down to this day, may be found in the following example paralleling many of the circumstances confronted by J.D. Dana and the equally famous Charles Darwin

(Walton, 1963, p. 7). It begins with Dana's exploration of the Pacific Ocean and South Seas on the Peacock (1838-

1842) and Darwin's voyages on the famous Beagle: 95 Both Dana and Darwin returned to publish geological observations with important and original ideas about such problems as volcanoes, the crystallization of lava, the origin of coral atolls, cycles of erosion, and development of continents and ocean basins. Both undertook, almost as a matter of personal discipline, to write monumental treatises in systematic biology, Dana on crustaceans, Darwin on the Cirripedia (barnacles and related animals). Darwin, forced by failing health into a life of semi-seclusion, abandoned his first love (so he called it), geology, for the painstaking biological research which produced The Origin of Species and an intellectual revolution. Though overwork took a heavy toll of Dana's health, he became the leading figure of the century in American geology through his books, through his teaching, and through the men he taught.

"To sit at the feet of Professor Dana and drink from the overflowing fountains of his knowledge, was a privilege which once enjoyed could never be forgotten" states O.C. Farrington (1895, p. 335) in his introduction to a paper entitled, "James D. Dana As A Teacher of

Geology."

One needs to read this paper to appreciate fully the effect Dana had on his students, aptly characterized by one who, having studied under him for two years, felt the compulsion to put his own thoughts about the man into print. Farrington says, "lest the sidelights which revealed the man and his methods should pass unheeded"

(1895, p. 340). He also felt that this record could serve as an "encouragement" and "guidance" for others.

Apparently Dana had that wonderful combination of attributes wherein "simplicity" and "nobility of 96

character" complemented "the breadth and depth of his

intellect" resulting in that very special breed of human being, teacher, scientist, all in one.

What other lessons did Farrington learn, as well

as myriads of students over the years, from this man Dana?

Many to be sure, but some do stand out in Farrington's

recollections. A "stick-to-it"and "get to the bottom of the problem" attitude enabled Dana profound insights

into numerous geological phenomena far ahead of his time.

He was once in one of his famous remarks regarding coral reefs and the formation of coral islands, compared to

Abraham Lincoln as to how he gained such a clear knowledge of the subjects that concerned him. Lincoln said, "I cannot rest easy when I am handling a thought till I have bounded it upon the North, upon the South, upon the East and upon the West" (Farrington, 1895, p. 336).

A doubting attitude - until you know - was another aphorism Dana's students were sure to detect in his methodology of teaching. At the same time he was one ready and able to change his former opinions when he found sufficient evidence to merit it. "Absolute candor and desire to support only the truth as he saw the truth were among his principal characteristics" (Farrington, 1895, p.

336) .

Dana had a remarkable ability to keep a variety of phases of geological information in his mind and pull 97 them forth, as time progressed, to be used in a fresher perspective to answer some geological problem. For example, he taught with greater stress the influence of the Cincinnati uplift and its relationship to the rocks of the continental interior, in 1889, than he had previously described in his Manual. His reason was that it was not until that year that he realized the full impact of this relationship.

Perhaps, the characteristic that he, as well as his students, prized the most was that of being careful.

Regardless of previous conclusions, he was ready and willing to give consideration to opinions which he believed had been derived from patient, careful, thorough study. "More" he said, "could be learned by studying unconformities than conformities." Apparently he believed this to be true of "unconformable opinions" as of discontinuous strata.

Dana ascribed his interest and talents in science to two main causes. First, a great deal of his youthful years was spent in the country; second, the influence of his first teacher, apparently a teacher whose own ardent interest in nature and fervor for collecting, easily rubbed off on his students. This was Dana's good fortune.

"Unlimited labor, breadth of mental vision, calmness of judgement, fertility of resources, strict integrity, and loftiness of purpose" are characteristics. 98 listed by Farrington, that enabled Dana to "accomplish more than perhaps any other man of his time for the advancement of American geology" (1895, p. 340).

Two additional notes on Professor Dana are appropriate. Although he was a great teacher of his subject and possessed numerous other personal qualities, he apparently did not write, to any degree, on the specific subject of geological education. However, one finds, to some considerable extent during this period, articles on geological education among the literary efforts of Winchell of Michigan or Williams of Cornell.

In any case, Dana's period of activity stretched over a full half-century. Considering Silliman, his father-in-law and E.S. Dana, his son, education in geology at Yale was dominated by this famous threesome from its beginnings in America for over a hundred years.

Founded and Cradled by a Geologist - Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Geology was introduced at M.I.T. when instruction began in 1865, by the Institute's founder, a geologist of considerable distinction, William Barton Rogers. He had previously been State Geologist of Virginia, his fame as a scientist coming chiefly from his work with his equally famous geologist brother, Henry, on the structure of the

Appalachian Mountains. Along with this, however, were his accomplishments in connection with the establishment and 99 administration of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Professor Rogers taught most of the geological offerings during the first seven years of M.I.T.'s operation. Along with his lectures he used Dana's

Manual as the principal text. His appointment included instruction not only in geology but also in physics. This multi-disciplinary responsibility was characteristic of the period in many institutions, but gradually changed in the late 1800's as specialization increased. By 1871 geology at M.I.T. was being subdivided.

The first annual catalog (1865-66) listed the following four subjects, with brief descriptions, under

Course IV "Practical Geology and Mining":

Historical Geology, and Paleontology, - Successive Systems, Groups, and Formations, with leading Fossils. Detailed Study of the Geology of North America. Special Geology of Coal, Iron, Copper, Salt, Plaster, etc., with particular reference to North- American localities; and an account of important Mines, Quarries, etc. Lectures on Mining. Drawing, - Topographical and Geological Sections and Maps; Conventional Representation of Rocks; Coloring of Maps and Sections; Plans and Sections of Mines, Quarries, and other open Workings; Mining, Machinery, and Implements.

Descriptive and Determinative Mineralogy, including the use of the blowpipe, were offered by the Department of Chemistry.

It is of interest to note the large number of

"practical" studies that the first curriculum at M.I.T. 100

offered. This was to be expected. It illustrates

beautifully that the kind of geology being taught at

various institutions during this period was, in the final

analysis, related very closely to the experience, biases,

prejudices, and limitations, of the faculty. Rogers had

served with distinction as a field geologist in

governmental employ - he knew the trials of field work

and the "practical" needs of the times for exploring and mapping the earth's resources. This was his curriculum.

In 1870 Alpheus Hyatt joined the faculty as

Professor of Zoology and Paleontology. He also served as

custodian of the Boston Society of Natural History.

Following closely on this appointment, T. Sterry Hunt and

William Harmon Niles received appointments in geology.

Rogers retired in 1871 due to ill health. Robert Richards,

from the first M.I.T. graduating class in 1868, taught mineralogy on its separation from the Chemistry Department

in 1871. He was to become Professor of Mineralogy and

Assaying in 1872 and Head of Course VI, Metallurgy, in

1873.

Early instruction at M.I.T. followed a major scheme:

1870

Course I Mechanical Engineering II Civil and Topography Engineering III Chemistry IV Mining Engineering V Building and Architecture 101 VI Science and Literature

1871

VII Natural History

From this time on, there were a number of course

manipulations. In 1871 Course IV became "Geology and

Mining", taught by Professor Richards. With Metallurgy

changing to Course VI in 1873, Physics became VIII,

Science and Literature IX, and Philosophy X. By 1885,

Metallurgy became part of Course III and Course VI was

reassigned "Electricity". Geology became a separately

designated course (XII) in 1890.

In 1871, geology instruction was available in all

courses. With increased specialization and

departmentalization certain courses permitted only certain

areas of geology for inclusion in the curriculum. For

example, the beginnings of this can be seen in Course VII,

Natural History; when it was added in 1871 students were

limited to selections in Historical Geology, Paleontology

and American Geology.

Although by 1871 four men (Hunt, Niles, Hyatt and

Richards) brought with them specialized backgrounds and

expertise for a few years they gave only relatively small

portions of their time to geology. Much of Niles's time was given to public lectures, while he also served as

Professor of Geography and Geology at Boston University.

Niles was an extremely popular lecturer on geological and 102 geographical topics for student and layman alike. He had been a student and assistant of Louis Agassiz at Harvard.

An able generalist, he took over the responsibilities in

Paleontology at M.I.T. on Professor Hyatt's retirement in

1888. He also continued as Head until his own retirement in 1902.

Hyatt taught Paleontology and Zoology from 1870 to 1888 but gave considerable effort to his own researches on the Cephalopoda and their evolution, a subject on which he was a world authority. He also spent a great deal of time in his custodial duties for the Boston Society of

Natural History.

Hunt one might call principally a chemist, although during his seven years at M.I.T. he taught only geology. He was a self-developed genius, having received his■only formal schooling at Yale as an assistant to

Benjamin Silliman, Jr. There, in three years, he contributed eighteen papers to Silliman's"JournalV wrote the organic chemistry for Silliman's First Principles, and searched for the underlying principles regarding the origin of crystalline rocks.

A student and colleague of Professor Hunt's,

William Otis Crosby, joined the ranks of teachers at M.I.T. in 1876. Crosby prepared a set of handwritten class notes with illustrations, unpublished, on Professor Hunt providing excellent and perceptive insights into what was being taught 103 at M.I.T. in the early 1870's, specifically 1873-74. This

224-page hardback notebook is preserved among the Crosby

Papers in the M.I.T. archives.

A recent study. The Geologists Crosby of Boston

(Shrock, 1972), more than adequately relates the

contributions as student, teacher, department head and

one of the founding fathers of engineering geology in

America. As an enthusiastic and careful collector, he

undoubtedly added more during his career to the M.I.T.

laboratory collections of minerals, rocks, ores and

fossils than any other individual.

Professor Shimer, himself a distinguished M.I.T.

geologist of the early 1900's, refers to Crosby in close

and affectionate terms. He once related that when he

(Shimer) was at Columbia, Crosby came to recruit new

instructors for M.I.T. When Shimer accepted an

appointment and later arrived in Boston with his newly

acquired wife. Professor and Mrs. Crosby were the first

to make them feel at home. In his brief history of M.I.T.,

Shimer says, "No one could be long with Professor Crosby without feeling the warmth of his kindliness, a love that reached out to embrace everything living." He was a vegetarian, specifically because of his love of animals.

His concern for humanity in general naturally found expression in his many efforts championing the oppressed groups of his day. 104 Shimer continued to elaborate on the many other

kind remembrances that he had of this geologist-teacher.

A soft-spoken man, Crosby gave lectures that were less

stimulating than his instruction in the laboratory. This

may well be attributed to his total commitment to the

philosophy of education that he learned as a student of

Agassiz. Agassiz's purpose was not to give instruction

on what one might find in books, but to teach students to

"observe for themselves." Agassiz was once quoted, with

little opportunity for misinterpretation, "I would

therefore advise all those who wish to be taught natural history, in the way it is generally taught, by recitations, to give up their intention of joining the school" (Shrock, 1972, pp. 14-15).

Indicative of Crosby's interest in the educational approaches to more effective instruction in the geological sciences is found in his brief but enlightening paper on

"Methods of Instruction in Mineralogy and Structural

Geology, in the Massachusetts Institute of Technology"

(Crosby, 1888). Enlightening because in this paper, read before the American Society of Naturalists in 1887, are methods that have been part of the techniques used for the past eighty-odd years in earth science teaching.

He gives the impression that these were not as much new approaches - some teachers were aware of them - but deserved more attention and application. Essentially 105

they involved a more liberal use of rocks, minerals,

crystals, fossils and models by the students. He refers

to this approach as "multiple usuage." At M.I.T., the

cabinets were extensive and diversified. In essence the

theme was practical and experiential. Field lessons play

an important role in instruction, especially in

structural geology. As to the specific kind of field

experience, Crosby refers in glowing terms to comments of

Harvard's W.M. Davis in his "Instruction in Geological

Investigation" of the same period.

What field instruction ought to be, has been, however, so recently and admirably stated by Professor W.M. Davis, that I need only congratulate teachers on the publication of his paper (Crosby, 1888, p. 194).

During Crosby's active tenure at M.I.T., he taught

at one time or another lithology, physical geology,

mineralogy, economic geology, geology of North America,

and structural geology. In all these he was an active

practitioner of the investigative methods of instruction,

relating these as much as possible to the actual

geological conditions and problems as one finds them in the

field.

Additional field studies beyond those associated with specific courses, were conducted during this period

much like present-day requirements in many institutions.

For example, in 1891 Niles and Crosby conducted a one-week

to ten-day study, required of all undergraduates, in the 106 region of the Delaware Water Gap.

What certainly was relatively innovative, in respect to field work, was the requirement for more advanced students to attend a summer school of geology, conducted usually in the Rocky Mountain region by local institutions. This was required unless the student's thesis involved similar regional problems.

George H. Barton became an assistant in geology in 1883, teaching mineralogy and structural geology.

Perhaps, along with these efforts, he is best known for his contributions as Director of the Teacher's School of

Science. In 1901-02 Barton succeeded Hyatt in this position.

There for a generation his genial and contagious enthusiasm made the School of Science the center of activity for bringing geology to the teachers and youth of Boston and vicinity. During this 'time Professor Barton had perhaps the most influence of any man of his time in spreading geological knowledge and interest among the people of Boston. He took them on innumerable trips, gave innumerable public lectures, and made the geology of Boston a subject of human concern among its citizens. (Shimer, Unpublished M.I.T. History of Geology).

It is apparent that geological instruction by 1900 was well under way at M.I.T. Although its beginnings had sound foundations in curricular offerings, faculty devoted to fulltime activity was at times varied and limited.

Somewhat crowded curricula in terms of professional courses slightly inhibited regular class instruction. 107

Fortunately the faculty's quality and character, and concern for advancement of the discipline by the faculty compensated for these limitations and led to the building of a strong program in the geological sciences at M.I.T.

Crosby's analysis indicates the extent and level of geological instruction at M.I.T. in 1888. The

Geological sciences were taught in the order of their logical succession; hence the work done in one course was a preparation for the next. The regular instruction in

Mineralogy was given in the second half of the second year, to all students in Mining Engineering, Chemistry, and Natural History (excepting those who were preparing for the Study of Medicine), and to all students taking the geological options in Civil Engineering and General

Studies. The time-allowance was 60 hours for

Descriptive Mineralogy, with 30 additional hours for preparation, and 30 hours for Determinative Mineralogy.

Dynamical Geology was also taught, in connection with

Physical Geography, in the second half of the second year.

It was taken by all students in Civil Engineering,

Natural History, and General Studies; and by the geological options in Mining Engineering and Chemistry.

The time covered by this course was 45 hours for lectures, and 45 hours for preparation.

Structural Geology, including Lithology, was given in the first half of the third year to all students 108 in Civil and Mining Engineering, Architecture, Natural

History, and General Studies, and to the geological option in Chemistry. This course was allowed 30 hours for lectures and laboratory work, 30 hours for preparation, and about 10 hours for field lessons.

Fifteen lectures on Chemical Geology, with an equivalent time for preparation were also given in this term to all students in Mining Engineering and Natural History

(except those preparing for the Study of Medicine), and to the geological options in Civil Engineering and

Chemistry.

Historical Geology was taught in the second half of the third year to all students in Civil Engineering,

Mining Engineering, Natural History, General Studies and the geological option in Chemistry. The time for this course was 45 hours for lectures, and 45 hours for preparation.

Instruction in Advanced or Special Geology, amounting to about 400 hours in the third year, and 750 hours in the fourth year, and varied to meet the needs of individual students, was given to students in Natural

History who desired a special training in Geology rather than Biology. Similar advanced work and field work was included in the geological options in Civil Engineering and Mining Engineering for the fourth year. 109

A New Giant in The Midwest - The University of Chicago

Moving to the Midwest, and an institution unique in this history, the University of Chicago offered a full program of geology when it opened its doors to students in 1892. This involved a curriculum consisting of twenty- eight courses of study listing an instructional staff of eight faculty. The faculty included: Thomas C. Chamberlin,

Head Professor of Geology; Rollin D. Salisbury, Professor of Geographic Geology; Joseph P. Iddings, Associate

Professor of Petrology; R. A. P. Penrose, Jr., Associate

Professor of Economic Geology; Charles R. Van Hise,

Professor of Pre-Cambrian Geology; Charles D. Walcott,

Professor of Paléontologie Geology; William H. Holmes,

Professor of Archaeologic Geology; Henry B. Kummel, Fellow in Geology. Van Hise, Holmes, and Walcott were non-resident professors. Walcott never arrived at the

University to teach a course and resigned after his second year of appointment.

The curricular offerings adopted, many of which were offered this first year of organization were:

Physiography, Crystallography, Physical Mineralogy,

Descriptive Mineralogy, Petrology, Petrography, Petrology

(Advanced), Field Petrology, General Geology, Geographic

Geology, Laboratory Work in Geographic Geology, Structural

Geology and Continental Evolution, Dynamic Geography, 110

Economie Geology, Chemistry of Ore Deposits, Geologic

Life-Development, Paléontologie Geology, Paleontology,

Pre-Cambrian Geology, Laboratory Course in Pre-Cambrian

Geology, Archaeologic Geology, Principles and Working

Methods of Geology, Special Geology, Local Field Geology,

Seminar, Geology in Camp, Professional Geology,

Independent Field Work.

A perusal of University Bulletins for 1892-1900 revealed additional curricular offerings. There appeared to be some deletions, but most probably many of these cases were the combining of courses or changes in course titles under different instructors. The new courses included; Graphic Geology (1894), Seminar in Glacial

Geology (1895), History of the Earth (1896), Advanced

Structural Geology (1896) , Geology for Teachers (1897),

Vulcanology and Metamorphism (1898), Pleistocene Geology

(1898), Special Petrology (1900), Elementary Meteorology

(1900) and Geology of North America (1900).

The Department of Geology in 1900 consisted of

Chamberlin, Salisbury, Iddings, Penrose, Van Hise and

Weller. Stuart Weller received a permanent staff assignment in 1895 to assist with the increasing interest and requirements for Paléontologie Geology. Four part- time or adjunct appointments and four Fellows completed the list of "Officers of Instruction" at this time.

The organization and purposes established for the Ill

Department clearly indicated both liberal and professional educational objectives.

The Department has been organized with a view to providing systematic training in Geology (embracing, as constituent sciences. Geography, Mineralogy, and Petrology) in such a form as to be serviceable as a part of a liberal education, and, at the same time, to be specifically preparatory to professional and investigative work in the science, either in connection with educational institutions, official surveys, industrial enterprises, or private researches. The first purpose predominates in the earlier courses and the second in the later, but both have a place in all, and find their realization in a common method of treatment (Chamberlin, 1903, p. 443).

The professional element was given priority in the construction of these courses. Associated closely with this professional orientation was the investigative approach, as much as possible, in organization and execution. An important point here is that those involved in curriculum development at Chicago believed that students, taking the earlier courses with leanings toward liberal education, will derive in the long run more from these kinds of experiences than from the "more common didactic methods, because of contact with the living problems of science into which they will thus be brought" (Chamberlin,

1903, p. 443).

Closely related to this liberal yet professionally structured curriculum influential in advancing the sciences, as well as its kind of instruction, in the late

1890's is the publication of the"Journal of Geology" 112

It was published during the Department's first year and continues to date. The original editorial staff included

Chicago's own eminent geological faculty with a distinguished list of associate editors from elsewhere in the United States and around the world. Among these were;

Sir Archibald Geikie, Great Britain; H. Rosenbusch,

Germany; Charles Barrels, France; Albrecht Penck, Austria;

Hans Reusch, Norway; Gerard de Geer, Sweden; George M.

Dawson, Canada; Joseph Le Conte, University of California;

G.K. Gilbert, Washington; H.S. Williams, Yale University;

J.C. Branner, Leland Stanford Junior University; G.H.

Williams, Johns Hopkins University; I.C. Russell,

University of Michigan; O.A. Derby, Brazil. Of these

G.H. Williams, George M. Dawson, and Joseph Le Conte were lost by death; and W.B. Clark, of Johns Hopkins University was added.

The practical and investigative methods of instruction were accented at University of Chicago by extensive and varied approaches to field studies. The field courses, basically summer activities, were divided into three classes.

The first course, usually was taken by those students with minimal geology, that is, less than a full year. A region of varied geological formations and features was selected for study. This course was especially designed for: (1) those preparing to teach in 113

secondary schools; (2) an introduction course for future majors in geology; (3) a student with sufficient intellect

and genuine desire to learn geology. The teacher

preparation course was the same as that required for future

geology professionals.

A second course was offered principally for those who had two years of geology and involved a regional study

in less detail, but widely varied in geological phenomena.

The third course, as to be expected, was essentially an independent or semi-independent study. It was frequently the basis for a doctor's thesis. A student with less training in geology could accompany and assist a third course student and receive credit for the first or second course depending on the quality and emphasis of

study.

The first course, introduced in 1894 ranged from nine to thirteen students. These groups studied principally physiographic, glacial and stratigraphie aspects of geology in the vicinity of Devil's Lake and

Dalles, Wisconsin. Advanced students were more widespread in their regional coverage, and varied in the nature of their individual inquiries. Courses from 1897 ran concurrently, with thirty-eight students in the field in

1899, ranging now geographically from Devil's Lake to

Yellowstone Park to the Grand Canyon of the Colorado.

Two first courses in the Wisconsin region and one 114

second course in the mountains of Montana and Washington,

totaling twenty-nine students, were conducting field work

in 1900.

Ten students in 1902 took a related field course

in geography, offered in addition to the above, under the

School of Education. The northern Illinois, Wisconsin

and Michigan areas were selected for investigation.

Referred to by Chamberlain in his report to the President

of the University, it appears to indicate some cooperation,

if not the first certainly an early endeavor, between the

Department of Geology and the School of Education.

Also appropriate, in terms of cooperative efforts,

to mention the influence of another member of the

Department of Geology serving as Professor of Geographic

Geology, Rollin D. Salisbury. Along with his personal research particularly in glacial geology and a reputation

as a superb teacher, he was extremely interested in and wrote on the subject for improving and advancing geographical education especially in the lower schools

(Salisbury, 1909, pp. 49-55).

Many have expressed high praise for the effectiveness of Salisbury as a teacher. His methods stemmed from his unique relationship with his students of frankness, fairness, constantly probing and delving for answers together, as well as his many other human qualities,

His beginning course in physiography soon was looked upon 115

as one of the outstanding courses available at the

University. He taught a course in Advanced General

Geology which all graduate students were required to sit, regardless of previous background and preparation. Some did this with reluctance, thinking it may be too repetitive and unnecessary. In the last analysis, most

agreed it was well worth their time as it provided a thorough review and grounding in the fundamentals and principles of geology. Salisbury was a genius of technique and believed firmly in pursuing relentlessly the subject based on searching for facts, correct methods of approach and basic principles.

The late Professor Emeritus of Geology, Arthur C.

Trowbridge of the University of Iowa (Iowa City), himself a distinguished scholar and teacher, orginally began his

University studies in the pre-medical curriculum at

Chicago. A "fill-in" class for him, one of Salisbury's created such an interest that he transferred to geology as his major. Not only did this contact with Salisbury influence his professional decision to follow geology, but this influence was also to "exert a profound effect on Trow in years following, and they coauthored laboratory manuals widely used for instruction" (Trow's

Colleagues, 1972, p. 196).

Perhaps, one of the truly outstanding testimonials to Salisbury, the teacher, can be found in the following 116 memorial by his student and namesake, Rollin Chamberlin;

Many students who have attended the University of Chicago, and probably others from Wisconsin and Beloit College in earlier years, when asked who was their greatest teacher, have replied without hesitation, "Professor Salisbury." To many of them he was the ideal teacher. His flashing personality fascinated the students; frequently outcropping bits of brilliancy kept them continually on the qui vive for thrills; and a never lapsing autocracy maintained the strictest order. His classroom was no place for the dull or the slow, but the better students profited enormously. So strongly did he influence their thoughts and behavior that ' in after years when they in turn were teaching, one after another has been criticized for "trying to ape Saul." The manner and methods did not seem right without the master. (1931, p. 126-138) .

In retrospect one might ask what was chiefly responsible for this successful development of a department both in curriculum and research in such a phenomenally short period of time. Walcott reports that:

of the 46 who passed the U.S. Geological Survey examinations on April 23-24, 1901, 13 came from Harvard, 6 each from Hopkins and Chicago, 5 from Yale, 4 from Cornell, and no more than 2 from any other educational institution (1891-92, p. 40-49).

Undoubtedly the philanthropy of John D.

Rockefeller, founder of the University, and the genius of its first President, W.R. Harper, account for the very fact of a new university in 1892 with 120 staff and 594 students. In addition, and foremost, as regards to the development of geology. Harper saw the wisdom of bringing

T.C. Chamberlin, then President of the University of

Wisconsin, to head this new department in this new 117 university. "The history of the Department has shown how splendidly his broad vision grasped the possibilities of the new institution" (Penrose, 1929, p. 323).

Here was a man of keen intellect, broad administrative experience (although he tired a bit of this as University President), and a strong desire to get back and contribute to the development of a department of distinction, under rather ideal conditions, in his own field. His specialties were principally in glacial geology, and he is perhaps, more famously known for his earth origin theory in collaboration with F.R. Moulton.

R.A.F. Penrose, Jr., himself a geologist of considerable distinction and served on the first faculty of the Department of Geology at Chicago under Chamberlin recalls ;

with vivid admiration the commanding position which was at once assumed by Chamberlin in that organization and which was accepted by its members, not with any jealousy or dispute, but with a feeling of gratitude that such a man was among them. (1929, p. 324).

Chamberlin surrounded himself with people of dedication, ability and desire to be in the new experiment at Chicago. He, as was to be expected, brought Salisbury his friend and colleague at Beloit and Wisconsin, to

Chicago.

For a number of years the faculty was composed of men who were called to come to teach and research 118

rather than those who were merely seeking employment.

This had an invigorating influence where originality and

efficiency could and did thrive.

Chamberlin's cercern for his faculty, students,

publication of the"Journal of Geology,"use and

construction of facilities - special reference to the

department collections and the Walker Museum, importance

of field studies, as well as his own research (he published

251 papers during his lifetime) and attention to

administrative details (although Salisbury relieved him

of a good deal of this) speak aptly to the important

position geology played at Chicago in the late 1800's.

Chamberlin retired from active teaching and

administration in 1919, but gave considerable attention

to his own interests - especially the problems of

cosmogony. A year following Chamberlin's death in 1928,

Penrose (1929, pp. 326-327) made the following remarks

eloquently summarizing the great impact and influence

Chamberlin had on geology at Chicago:

...he must have been deeply gratified to realize that he left in the geological Faculty a group of men who appreciated his wonderful ability, who had learned to benefit by their contact with him, and whose respect, admiration, and affection followed him in his retirement. He has now passed away, but his genius, his accomplishments, and his great and remarkable personality, which seemed to grow in grandeur as his knowledge of the vast cosmos grew, will long be a brilliant inspiration to those who will continue to unfold the phenomena and philosophy of nature. 119

Brief mention is made of the good fortune of the

Department of Geology to have a friend on the Board of

Trustees, George C. Walker, who donated the necessary funds to establish, in its second year of operation, the

Walker Museum. This greatly enhanced the instructional and research opportunities of the Department.

Penrose was charged with starting a mineralogical collection for the Museum. This he did with some materials from his personal collection, but a great majority of minerals, ores, and other display exhibits came to the University through his good services in obtaining them at the close of the World's Columbian

Esposition held in Chicago. This included specimens, many of unusual value, from France, Sweden, England and other countries. Many collections came from states, in fact a large portion of a first-rate exhibit from

California was obtained at this time. Penrose enjoyed revealing the point that "it is an interesting fact to know that the beginning of the mineral collection of the

University of Chicago started largely with the material collected from the World's Columbian Exposition in 1893"

(1929, p. 326).

Penrose was somewhat disappointed that more could not have been acquired for his collections, but apparently some exhibits went to the Field Columbian Museum started at the same time by the generosity of Marshall Field of 120

Chicago. This was to become later known as the Field

Museum of Natural History. CHAPTER IV

• GEOLOGICAL EDUCATION IN THE SMALLER

COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES

Having considered institutions in the United

States where geology had its roots and development was rapid and sophisticated to the point of conferring many of the first U.S. doctoral degrees, the discussion will now turn to selected and representative institutions comprising divisions two and three. These essentially comprise the colleges where no doctorate was offered but substantial instruction was given in geology (Division 2) and those colleges and universities where some work, was offered in this discipline laying the foundations for growth and recognition in the 1900's (Division 3).

In this second category the writer has chosen

Amherst College for consideration. Indeed, others such as Dartmouth College and Wesleyan University of

Connecticut indicated relationships permitting inclusion in this grouping, while at the same time exhibiting those characteristics typifying their own institutional philosphies; however, for purposes of this study Amherst proves most appropriate. As Woodbridge asserts (1921,

121 122 pp. 256-257);

But in this country, Amherst very nearly created it (Geology). She was a pioneer and her influence has spread through several generations and into every important center of geological study the country over.

"Piety and Intellect" - Amherst College

Unlike the larger university settings for the beginnings of geology in the United States previously considered, Amherst brought in the late 1800's not only the richness for instruction and investigation in geology but also a religious heritage and conviction that played no small role in its development.

On several branches of learning the College, often very directly, has had a profound influence. Geology may be put first because it was first historically and has no superior in distinction (Woodbridge, 1921, p. 256).

In many disciplines Amherst must be recognized high on the list for the influence of its teachers on

American higher education throughout the nation.

Reporting in 1921 on the status of Amherst graduates,

Woodbridge states :

among her graduates can be found at least thirty five presidents of colleges and universities, three hundred professors, and about an equal number of tutors and instructors (1921, p. 256).

Amherst was principally and preeminently a "teaching college." The sciences, not dividing them into their respective branches, led all the other disciplines in teachers among the graduates. This is rather interesting 123 when considering that Amherst was essentially committed to a classical education for its students.

Of the same three hundred professors, referred to above, up to 1921, ten were from geology. However, in the realm of the truly exceptional teacher during this early period, four share this accolade - E. Hitchcock,

C.Ü. Shepard, B.K. Emerson and F.B. Loomis.

Four exceptionally great teachers are to be counted among her sons and these teachers have in their turn stimulated others, so that geologically speaking, the Amherst strata can be found outcropping almost anywhere there is any geology at all (Woodbridge, 1921, p. 257).

When one puts together the pieces in the early history of scientific programs at Amherst, "in only two fields, geology and biology, does one find at Amherst any clear attempt to relate the work to the larger objectives of the college" (LeDuc, 1946, p. 78). The other principal scientific subjects, chemistry, physics, and astronomy, were presented descriptively, vocational in part, and "vaguely disciplined." Geology and biology, however, attracted the attention of the theologians of the institution. Prior to 1870 especially, colleges such as Amherst and Oberlin were deeply committed to religious viewpoints. For a considerable period, this emphasis had a debilitating effect upon the development of a milieu appropriate to scientific study and research.

It is clearly not the purpose of this study to 124 delve into the so-called "Puritanical and Evangelical" elements of educational and instructional philosophy at

Amherst; however, these viewpoints prevailed in the early days of geology and some believe that geology was strongly influential in bringing a dignity to the sciences apparently lacking before 1870.

In as much as Edward Hitchcock was an

"evangelical" and because geology at Amherst was

Professor Hitchcock for so many of the early years, a point of clarification is in order:

The study of science remained for the Amherst evangelicals what it had been for the Puritans, the handmaid of theology. There was, however, this difference: the evangelicals had less regard for reason and logic. God could not be glorified if man attained the dignity of intelligence (LeDuc, 1946, p. 80).

One should not get the impression that all early

Amherst men of science taught their subjects to the importunities of theology. An enslavement to theology required a logic that makes observations fit into a preordained scheme of things.

With this as background and cognizant of Edward

Hitchcock's influence on geology, geological instruction and the many who followed him as teachers of geology, it is appropriate to consider this impact in somewhat greater detail. From the very first it should be recognized, here was truly an unusual man. No college degree, but he served as an effective college president for nine years. 125

"never studied in a divinity school" - there appears to be

some disagreement regarding his training in a divinity

school. The preceding quote refers directly to LeDuc's

reference, 1921, p. 80. However, in a biographical sketch of Edward Hitchcock it states;

In 1818, having decided to become a minister, he entered the theological seminary at Yale, and was graduated in 1820 (The National Cyclopedia of American Biography, 1897, p. 308) .

Reference to his entering theological school at New Haven where he came under the influence of Benjamin Silliman, and leaving there to take a charge is the only specific reference in this regard in the Dictionary of American

Biography (1961 renewal, p. 70). In any event during a brief pastorate in Massachusetts, his ministry and oratory brought purpose and life to his convictions.

His scientific training, however brief, was under

Benjamin Silliman at Yale. Brief as it may have been,

Hitchcock made significant geological contributions in his day especially to paleontology. If there were any deficiencies as a scientist, it has been said, lay in "one that he shared with Silliman and Agassiz: inability to separate his scientific studies from his religious persuasious" (LeDuc, 1946, p. 81). In later life particularly, indeed, throughout the period of his rather early religious conversion which coincided somewhat with his radidly developing interest in science, he worked at 126 reconciling his geological investigations as contributions to these religious persuasions. Throughout his life, his "grand object...was to illustrate by the scientific facts I taught, the principles of natural theology" (Hitchcock, E . , 1863, p. 291).

Hitchcock conducted personal field investigations as well as working on the State Geological Surveys of

Massachusetts and New York, although he wrote untiringly attempting to fit scientific evidence into a predetermined theology, mostly deductively, he did alter some of his scientific notions. These included the probable age and origin relationships of the earth and that certain Biblical chronology needed reinterpretation; for example, the age of man relative to the age of the earth. His inability to accept man as more than six thousand years old forced him to an interesting interpretation of creation. In brief, he said:

There was a long interlude between the creation of matter and the creation of light. In this period the normal processes of weathering and sedimentation went on. (1851, chapt., "The Epoch of the Earth's Creation Unrevealed.").

Even up to his death, in 1864, he refused acceptance of Darwinian teachings, one can see how he must have wrestled, for years, and not alone, with the apparent contradictions between his science and his faith.

Hitchcock considered himself a teacher. He taught some thirty-nine years (1826-1865) at Amherst. He 127

expected his students, mostly prospective ministers, to

be prepared with arguments to answer the skeptical. To

help do this he had his students study firsthand the

college collections of rocks, minerals and fossils. The

following quote fairly succinctly expresses the

philosophy under which he taught and reigned alone so

long as Professor of Chemistry and Natural History (from

1825-26) and as Professor of Natural Theology and Geology

(from 1845 until his death in 1864) :

For I hesitate not to say, that however otherwise well educated a scholar is, he cannot defend Christianity... from the subtle attacks which of late years have been drawn from natural history...if he has not seen, and to some extent studied the specimens on which these objections are founded (Hitchcock, 1863, p. 113).

Hitchcock did receive some help with his teaching

duties upon the arrival of C.U. Shepard, principally a mineralogist, in 1843. Prior to 1870, "General Geology"

and "Mineralogy" were the only offerings in this

discipline. Though "Geology", specifically, did not appear

in his title until 1845, Mineralogy and Geology were

listed in 1826 with "Senior Studies" under the "Natural

History" part of his appointment. Apparently his lectures

and notes, preparatory to his famous text. Elementary

Geology, published in 1840 with some thirty subsequent editions and revision, served along with Cleaveland and

Dana for the instruction in geology and mineralogy for

some time. 128

C.P. Shephard, the younger Hitchcock, Edward, Jr., and the patriarch moved geology forward at Amherst in the early-middle 1800's; however, with the arrival, in 1870, of Benjamin K. Emerson on the scene, and through the latter part of the century, geology was to undergo transition.

Where Hitchcock had established and nurtured geology through its infancy, Emerson was to guide Amherst to greater heights of glory throughout the latter half of the century.

Emerson, an Amherst son, returned to Amherst after doctoral studies in biology and geology in the laboratories

It of Berlin and Gottingen, well qualified academically possessing an innate talent for teaching, an independence of mind and courage of his convictions. Despite this, however, he avoided controversy and "never bothered to set down his own philosophy of science or his ideas on the place of science in a New England college" (LeDuc, 1946, pp. 83-84). From the nature and quality of his teaching and research, some forty-seven years, it is quite apparent that he considered science and religion, unlike his predecessors, as separate fields. Also unlike his predecessors and the President of Amherst, Stearns, at this time; who tended to overlook or at least not interfere, Emerson's teaching "premised a frank acceptance of the Darwinian hypothesis" (LeDuc, 1946, p. 84).

One of Emerson's students, James F. Kemp '81, paid 129

one of the highest tributes to Emerson, the man and

teacher, when he said:

we young fellows, who have been graduated anywhere from ten to fifty years, are delighted to take off our hats today in affectionate respect. Few teachers of science have been more inspiring (1921, p. 273).

Through this inspirational teaching and academic

productivity in his field, Emerson is credited with ten

to fifteen professors of geology, two state geologists,

several on the United States Geological Survey, four members of the National Academy of Sciences, and three presidents of the Geological Society of America having gone from his classroom.

By 1900, having begun with Emerson and taught

chiefly by him, at least seven specific areas of geology were added to the curriculum. These included:

Stratigraphy and Paleontology (1871), Vertebrate

Paleontology (1871), Pleistocene Geology and Geomorphology

(1880), Geophysics (1883), Geochemistry (1883), Structural

Geology (1886) , Petrology and Petrography (1900). He also

took over the instruction in Mineralogy from Shepard in

1877.

The preceding "courses" need some qualification.

In a letter from the Special Collections Librarian of

Amherst College, he indicated that:

In general,if the content of a course dwelt to any degree on any of the subjects you listed on the enclosed form, I selected the earliest date 130

that the subject was stressed even though it was not the subject of an entire course (correspondence, J. Richard Phillips, 1967).

This probably accounts for such subject listings as

"Geophysics" and "Geochemistry"; however, the main point of interest is that students were exposed, most probably by Emerson, to the "content", or subject matter, "to any degree" in these areas especially after Emerson's arrival at Amherst in 1870.

Catalog information for the period after the 1870 through the early 1890's includes instruction in fundamentally a three term pattern: first term, essentially structural and dynamical geology; second term, basically historical geology and physical geography; third term, field study (including the use of appropriate instrumentation) and laboratory work. A so-called

"Popular" course was offered for one term in which the elements of geology were emphasized.

A one term course in mineralogy, devoting roughly half time to crystallography and half to descriptive studies of minerals was also offered. The college had a valuable cabinet estimated to contain 40,000-50,000 specimens. Emerson's account of these collections in his two articles, "The Geological and Mineralogical Collections of Amherst College" (1915, pp. 17-24; 1916, pp. 97-102) details their origins, collectors and contributors, the museum builders and the trials and tribulations of 131 cataloging and storage.

By 1900 the catalog describes a more structured program with areas offered and topics covered as referred to previously.

Field work and excursions were an integral part of the instruction at all levels with particular emphasis on the geology of the Amherst Basin. An elective, including lectures and field work is reported in the

College catalog of 1880 meeting four days a week. In 1884 a thesis or map of an area was required in the third term of a geology major. By 1900 the thesis requirement included the student being in the field at least three afternoons the first half and two afternoons the last half of the term.

When considering the third category of institution, the course or two offering in geology, due to a large number of colleges offering geology under the natural sciences, usually by one teacher, or in combination most frequently with biology and in some instances chemistry or mathematics; the need for justifying the ones chosen for comment is apparent. The list is too large for random reference. Those selected, therefore, have been included because of their modest beginnings from the 1870's to recognized and respected reputations a century later - the 1970's. Care is taken to clarify that these described are by no means the only ones that could or should be 132 included; however, limitations of this investigation dictate the selection of a few to illustrate what may well be said happened at many institutions throughout the nation.

Numerous factors, some referred to in Chapter II of this study, "Forces and Events Contributing to An

Awakening of Instruction in the Earth Sciences in the

1800's," account for in many instances the phenomenal development as well as the demise of departments in the

1900's. Again the purpose here is principally to report the situation as it occurred in the late 1800's, keeping in mind that geology, with its' ups and downs, remains a recognized field at that institution a hundred years later.

Again most of the information to follow pertains to private colleges and universities; however, the development, at the level of separate departments, in

State institutions showed a marked increase in the late

1800's through the 1920's.

Rutgers College and State-supported universities of twenty States (Vermont, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee, Iowa, Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, Wyoming, Arizona, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington) all register a decided increase in the appreciation of geology. (Mathews and Little, 1921, p. 237).

A number of colleges, especially mid-western, for any number of reasons qualify for inclusion in this third grouping. There i- no preferential order intended in the 133 following presentation of these institutions.

More Modest Beginnings - Cornell College

One of these mid-west colleges, Cornell, of Mt.

Vernon, Iowa, illustrates an interesting geological birth in the nineteenth century with continued growth to a three man department offering a B.A. in Geology in the early

1970's. By then at least nine geology courses were required for the major in addition to a summer field course.

Cornell College admitted its first group of students in the fall of 1853. Geology was first listed as a separate course of instruction in the 1855-56 college catalog and first taught in the fall term of 1855-56 by

Stephen N. Fellows, Professor of Natural Science. One of the editions of Edward Hitchcock's Elementary Geology was used as the textbook. Geology has been taught each year, since it was first offered in 1855. Professor Fellows taught geology one term each year, using Hitchcock's text, during the period 1855-60.

William Harmon Norton was appointed Professor of

Greek and Geology in 1881, which coincides with the date of establishment of a formal department of Geology at

Cornell. Professor Norton occupied this unusual double chair until 1890 when he was appointed Professor of

Geology and Chairman of the Department of Geology. Norton continued as Chairman of the Department of Geology until his retirement in 1924. During the period 1881-90, when 134

Norton was both Professor of Greek and Geology, he offered only one term of instruction, using LeConte's textbook.

In addition, he gave regularly scheduled lectures in

Mineralogy and Paleontology. When Norton was relieved of his duties in Greek, in 1890, he expanded the offerings to one course each term: Physical geology - Fall; Historical geology - Winter; and Mineralogy - Spring term. Optical

Mineralogy was added in 1892 and Paleontology in 1895.

Again some confusion might arise as to the actual definition of a course. For example, Hopkins (1896, p.

829) refers to a two-term course in 1893-1894 described as follows :

One course is given in physical geology, with special attention to rivers and Pleistocene geology. The second course contains physical geology, with a short course in determination of ores and rock-making minerals by blowpipe analysis and microscopical petrography; also • an outline of historical geology.

More than likely the first description is, as returned by questionnaire, based on catalog information. In any event, the two descriptions are similar enough in content to characterize Cornell's program at the time.

Geology in the mid 1890's was popular at Cornell

College with reports of roughly 66 percent of the seniors and 47 percent of the juniors choosing this on an elective basis.

T.C. Hopkins makes no direct reference to the following three institutions: Iowa State College at Ames, 135

Iowa, Lawrence University, Appleton, Wisconsin, and

Wittenberg College, Springfield, Ohio, in his report of

1896. However, geology was on the move there, with modest origins.

Iowa State University of Science and Technology

The beginnings of geology at Iowa State College, then a smaller institution of two hundred fifty students in 1880 and nine hundred thirty students in 1900; since

1959 known as Iowa State University of Science and

Technology, are obscure and somewhat confusing. However, a course entitled "Geology and Mineralogy" is included in the first course of study reported in 1870. By 1874-75 the course described as "Geology" makes reference to the use of "the book by Joseph LeConte" as the text, and geological specimens from the Iowa Survey and Ward's plaster casts of fossils as aids to these studies.

Apparently these casts had been only recently obtained according to an article in the student paper of that year,

"The Aurora", listing the cost in excess of $1500.00 and describing the College Museum in which they were housed.

This course taught by either Professor Hutchins or

Macomber, Professors of Chemistry, Meteorology and Geology, was a five credit requirement for first semester seniors in

Agriculture, Horticulture and Forestry, Stock Breeding,

Mechanical Engineering, Civil Engineering, Mining

Engineering, Architecture, and General Science for Ladies. 136

Apparently this pattern, changing somewhat around

1886 when geology was inherited by Zoology and Entomology

and taught by Herbert Osborn, an Assistant in Zoology,

prevailed until the arrival of Samuel W. Beyer in 1891 as

an Assistant in Zoology and Geology. The geology

offerings in 1892 were increased to three; Geology,

Mineralogy-Petrography and Economic Geology. Apparently

these were instructed by Beyer. In 1896, upon receipt of

his Ph.D. in 1895, Beyer's title was changed to

Assistant Professor of Geology and Mineralogy.

Another change took place in 1898 in the creation

of the Department of Geology and Mining Engineering, with

Beyer serving as its head. His title than was Professor

of Geology and Mining Engineering.

An interesting split came about in 1901 when the

Department of Geology became listed under "Science" and

Mining Engineering under "Engineering" with Beyer heading

both. In the meantime Ira A. Williams initially appointed

Instructor in Geology in 1899, was appointed Instructor

in Geology and Mining Engineering and Louis E. Young as

Assistant in Mining Engineering.

By 1901 the following courses were offered in the

then established Department of Geology: Physiography,

General Geology, Advanced Geology, Economic Geology,

Mineralogy, Descriptive and Determinative Mineralogy,

Petrography and the Geology of Coal. 137

A review of some later catalogs indicated that not until 1914-15 was provision made for graduate degrees in the department. At the same time the curriculum became distinct from the "general curriculum in Science" with thirty courses listed in geology.

The Directory of Geosicence Departments for 1970 lists thirteen faculty at Iowa State excluding research fellows and graduate assistants. Some thirteen undergraduate courses and seventeen graduate courses leading to the doctorate are available.

Lawrence University

Lawrence University, with a current enrollment of roughly 1450 students, first held classes in 1849 as

Lawrence College. As early as 1865 there was a course in

"Natural Philosophy" offered by John E. Davies, Professor of Natural Science and Philosophy. This undoubtedly included some geology.

Separate courses in geology and mineralogy were held about 1867-68 as part of the "Scientific Course" by

James C. Foye, Professor of Chemistry, Physics and Geology

(1867-1892). It was not until about 1905-06 that the notion of a "major" became part of the curriculum. One of six possible majors was in "Science" with Professor

Dexter P. Nicholson, the first full-time geology professor

(1892-1908), offering studies in; Inorganic Geology,

Historical Geology, Determinative Mineralogy, Economic 138

Geology and Physiography.

In the early 1970's Lawrence, with four Ph.D.'s in the geology department, offered approximately thirteen undergraduate courses for the B.A. major in the geology with the addition of a number of ancillary subjects as strongly recommended. A comprehensive examination was also required.

Wittenberg University

Wittenberg University, known as Wittenbery College until 1959, currently enrolling some three thousand students reported, in the early 1970's, a Department of

Geology of four Ph.D.'s offering twelve undergraduate courses for the major in the field as well as an Earth

Science Teaching option.

There was optional instruction in Geology and

Mineralogy reported in the courses taught to upperclassmen from the very first year, 1845. These two continue in the catalog listings until the 1859-60 edition when geology appears alone and remains the sole offering until

1882. Hitchcock's text was replaced by Dana's in 1865.

During these years, 1845-1882, Mr. H.R. Geiger,

A.S., taught the geology. He was one of the first professors at the college, and had the title of Professor of Mathematics and Natural Sciences. During the years he acquired a Ph.D. and accompanying this the shortening of his title to Professor of Natural Sciences. 139

The 1882-83 catalog again listed Mineralogy (Dana)

and Geology (LeConte) for upperclassmen.

A Department (sometimes referred to a School) of

Chemistry and Mineralogy was established in 1896. Dr.

Alvin F. Linn headed this area and until 1905 the

following geology electives were offered: Crystallography

and Descriptive Mineralogy (2 hours), Determinative

Mineralogy (2 hours), Geology and Paleontology (2 hours).

By 1905 Geology was placed with Biology in the

Department of Geology and Biology under the leadership of

Dr. Charles G . Shatzer. At that time two geology courses were included in the 1904-05 catalog:"General Geology"

(three credit hours; two hours lecture, one hour field work) and"Field Course in the Springfield Region"described briefly as a systematic study of the area involving "Methods of mapping and recording field data, etc."

Geology remained allied with Biology for eighteen years at which time a new association with Geography was established. Around 1950 a separate Department of Geology was named. Another change brought about the Department of

Earth Science in 1953; however, "Geology" departmental status returned in 1965.

Franklin and Marshall College

Concluding this section on "More Modest

Beginnings", attention is directed to southeastern

Pennsylvania and Franklin and Marshall College in 140

Lancaster. Geology at Franklin and Marshall is, perhaps, one of the finest examples of a slow but steady development from the middle 1800's, gaining momentum in

the 1900's, to a meteoric rise commencing with the

formation of a separate Department in 1946. Phenomenal development from that point to the present accounts for this institution's prestige as one of the leading institutions (under 2000 enrollment) for the preparation of geologists and geologist-educators in the nation today.

By the 1970's the Department had a faculty of seven

Ph.D.'s, approximately 70 percent of its graduates each year in graduate school, averaging twenty-one majors graduating yearly, and in the period 1958-1970 receiving eighteen National Science Foundation grants in succession totaling over one million dollars for a variety of uses in geological education and research. In a study in the early 1970's Franklin and Marshall took first-place in the nation, for undergraduate origins of doctorates in geology for institutions of its size.

Instruction was first given in geology at

Franklin and Marshall in 1853 by the Reverend Thomas C.

Porter for whom the College's distinguished Honor Society

"devoted to the cultivation of interest and research in the physical sciences" was named (College Catalogue,

1946, p. 77).

From 1853-1860 the catalogue made general 141 reference to "Lectures on Geology" included under the title "Natural Science." These lectures were usually combined, however, with lectures on Anatomy and Physiology.

By 1861, still under "Natural Science", the catalogue entries read "Lectures on Geology" with no direct reference to botanical or zoological subjects. Apparently

Porter continued as instructor to about 1866. From 1873-

74, and for the next fifteen years, the entry for first and second term seniors was simply "Geology."

It is not clear as to his responsibilities, if any, in the teaching of geology; however, Charles H. Budd is listed for "Natural Science" from 1868-1871. Presumably from 1871, and for some time, the Reverend John S. Stahr,

President of the College and Professor whose disciplines ranged from Moral Philosophy to German, gave the instruction in geology. Hopkins (1896, p. 846) makes direct reference to Stahr teaching geology as late as

1893-94. The catalogues suggest that he continued to 1900.

There is the possibility that Richard C. Schiedt, incidentally on his retirement granted the Emeritus

Professorship in Biology; and/or John M. Grove, both listed under "Natural Science", may have been involved in

"geological instruction" in the waning years of the 1800's.

Schiedt served on the faculty for "Natural Science" from

1887-88 to 1900 and Grove from 1895-1900. However, the catalogues from 1907-18 list Schiedt specifically as the 142

only geology instructor.

In 1888-89, for three terms in the senior year,

geology was identified as; First Term - Dynamic and

Structural Geology (2 hours) using LeConte's, Elements

of Geology; Second Term - Historical Geology (2 hours)

continued use of LeConte. Third Term - General Review, with field work (2 hours). This pattern continued for

six years, when in 1894-95 such minor changes as

relegating geology to elective studies in the three terms

of the senior year, dropping "General Review" and adding

field work to the course in Historical Geology occurred.

Dynamical and Structural Geology and Historical

Geology were the two principal offerings through 1900.

Their course descriptions at that time were similar to

those of the past twelve years with the exception of

sixteen-week sessions and the introduction of Mineralogy

laboratory work (2 hours) in Dynamical and Structural

Geology. Two hours of laboratory work in Paleontology were also added to the recitations in Historical Geology.

A slight modification, for these two basic courses,

appeared in the 1903-04 catalogue stressing the use of models, fossils and photographs. These catalogue course

offerings and descriptions remained essentially the same,

with minor changes such as the textbooks used, and

characterized the program of geological instruction for

roughly half a century. 143

Blowpipe Analysis, Mineralogy and Assaying were also added in 1901. No specific instructor was listed, more than likely it was Dr. Herbert H. Beck, an Assistant

Professor of Chemistry in that year. These courses were described as follows;

Blowpipe Analysis. (Second Semester.) An elementary course in qualitative analysis in the dry way. The chief aim of this course is to assist in the identification of minerals. Lectures and laboratory, two periods. Reference book: Elementary Blov/pipe Analysis by Landauer. Mineralogy. (Second Semester.) Elementary course in physical, chemical, and descriptive mineralogy. Laboratory: Practical exercises in determination of the more common mineral species. Two periods. Textbook: E.S. Dana's text-book of mineralogy. Assaying. (Second Semester.) Furnace assay of gold, silver, lead ores, etc. Laboratory, two periods. Text-book: Rickett's and Miller's Notes on Assaying. (College Catalogue, 1901, p. 30).

The 1907 catalogue specifically refers to these courses as instructed by Dr. Beck. Although a chemist, in 1918 he took responsibility for the geological instruction, the two basic geology courses and those that were essentially Mineralogy, at Franklin and Marshall for some years to come.

In any event, geological education through the

1900's, up to the creation of the Department of Geology in 1946 by Dr. Richard M. Foose, was guided chiefly by three individuals: Richard C. Schiedt, Herbert H. Beck and H. Justin Roddy. Not in the specific purview of the 144 time period of this paper, but of special interest in passing, was the influence on students and the community at large, of Dr. Roddy. He not only served as Curator of the College Museum from the middle 1920's, contributing significantly to the popularization of the earth sciences; but also gave the formal geological instruction, in the two courses referred to previously, from 1937 through the early 1940's. CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION

Late nineteenth-century geological instruction has been investigated by an in-depth study of geology and geological instruction at selected institutions of higher learning in the United States grouped under three broad categories :

1. Selected major universities granting the Ph.D.,

implying established undergraduate programs.

2. Selected institutions not offering the doctorate,

but evidencing good exposure to geological

instruction.

3. Selected smaller colleges and universities where

some attention was given to geological education,

laying the foundations for growth and recognition

in the 1900's.

The nine institutions included in these studies are Yale University, Massachusetts Institute of

Technology, and the University of Chicago in Group 1;

Amherst College in Group 2; and Cornell College, Iowa

State College, Lawrence University, Wittenberg University,

145 146 and Franklin and Marshall College in Group 3. From an analysis of questionnaires and other pertinent data, three principal observations can be made:

1. The late nineteenth century was the time period

when geological instruction, as well as the

discipline itself, blossomed.

2. The patterns and specific practices of instruction,

characteristic of each of these distinct categories,

resulted from the influence of geologist-educators

whose concerns included not only their discipline

but how it could and should be taught. They wrote

about these concerns.

3. Developments in the state of knowledge of geology,

trends from fundamentalism towards secularism,

applications of knowledge towards more practical

ends (largely economic), and a developing

specialization and professionalism were reflected

in the instruction of geology at the time.

These observations speak rather well, in summary, to the basic question of what was happening in the United

States in geological education during the late nineteenth century. Other trends may be discerned and are apparent, but those named above must be considered significant.

It is clear that all three categories of institutions made important contributions in their own way. Obviously the larger universities had the major 147 advantages of department organization, financial backing, sophisticated equipment, scientists to teach the geology courses and opportunities for students to carry out research. The smaller institutions made their contributions, perhaps, in more subtle ways. B.K. Emerson at Amherst managed, for example, to bring the discipline somewhat away from the strangle-hold of religious bias by simply ignoring, or at least keeping still on, issues of philosophy - specifically the place of science in the college. One might say that he believed and taught as he saw fit, but chose not to strain relations.

What of the importance and impact of the geologist-educators to the major developments in geological education in this period? Throughout the literature of the late 1800's, geologist-educators can be distinguished from the "ordinary" in that they wrote about their educational concerns for the improvement of geological instruction, and were often cited in the literature, by peers and students alike, for their skills as teachers. It was fortunate too that they exerted considerable influence in geological circles which opportunely were widely scattered throughout the nation.

Among these prominent individuals one must include A.

Winchell (Michigan), B.K. Emerson (Amherst), W.M. Davis

(Harvard) , T.C, Charaberlin (Chicago) , R.D. Salisbury

(Chicago), H.S. Williams (Cornell University), Joseph 148 LeConte (California).

Others, for example A. Packard, a zoologist and geologist at Brown, and W.C. Crosby at Harvard, did some writing on the teaching of geology; however, a careful survey of the literature reveals that the majority of contributions made during this period were by or about these relatively few dedicated geologist-teachers.

A number of instructional techniques and methods of the late nineteenth century can be discerned as forerunners of our modern approaches to teaching geology.

Notable among these is an increased emphasis on field work and mapping. Being able to observe and describe geological phenomena in the natural setting not only aids in the interpretation but also enhances the pleasure. The University of Chicago offered field courses at three separate levels of instruction involving both local and widespread regional coverage. Amherst College included field work and excursions at all levels in their curriculum but special emphasis was given to more localized studies of the Amherst Basin. Some faculty had either come from State Surveys or were themselves investigating field problems, and in this manner introduced important elements and data from local and more distant field localities into their lessons.

The invention and development of more sophisticated apparatus and newer techniques of analysis 149

permitted dramatic advances in both the discipline and

instruction, many of which carry into present usage.

Contributions of Johns Hopkins University in 1883-84,

under G.H. Williams's enthusiastic leadership, were of

tremendous significance in introducing systematic

petrography into the curriculum; heretofore it had not

been available in American universities. This was made

possible with the invention and development of the

pétrographie microscope.

G.J. Brush and S.L. Penfield, among others, added

to the growing number of texts on newer techniques of

blowpipe analysis for mineral identification. The

description of rocks and minerals was, at this time, the

basis for certain geological studies. Although blowpipe

analysis has been replaced in many curricular offerings by

modern analytical procedures and apparatus, it was taught

with considerable rigor in some institutions into the middle 1900's.

Allocating specific periods of time for laboratory

investigation was a major development of this period.

Davis, Winchell, and others placed considerable emphasis

on the use by both teacher and students, of models,

specimens (rock, mineral, crystal, fossil), photographs,

and demonstrations. These obviously provided problems of

preparation and organization; however, the advantages to be accrued from seeing and working with the collections 150

and prepared materials far surpassed the difficulties

encountered.

An. important aspect of late nineteenth-century

instruction in geology is the contribution that the

subject makes to one's general education. Whether as a

requirement, probably a carryover from earlier natural

history and natural theology, or as an elective in the

late 1800's, there were faculty and institutions, such as

Amherst, where attention was given to geology in

fulfilling the need of and desire for general studies,

cultural values and the elevation of the spirit.

Liberalization and equalization in curricular

studies in higher education since 1870 is well known and f.) documented. Snow (1907, p. 173 remarks}:

The advance in the average age limit of the entering class, immediately following the close ■ of the Civil war, the stimulus to the national life that this event occasioned, and the general appreciation of the latent manliness, and delight in personal responsibility, manifest in American youth, led naturally to the general adoption of the elective system of study in the curriculum of the college.

This parallels previous concerns of many educators

regarding the importance of general education, and at a

time when specialization in the sciences in particular

was taking place. Suffice it to say that in geology in

the late 1800's, especially among the geologist-educators,

there were these trends characterized by Snow in courses

for the "general" student. The needs of the major in 151

geology and the rapidly advancing state of the science

required additional attention, however, which was

evidenced by increasing specialization in the discipline.

Considering the institutions studied, within

their respective categories, there were numerous

similarities in the instructional offerings, quality and

quantity of equipment and specimen cabinets, attitudes

towards the place of geology in the curriculum and

faculty strength both in numbers and distinction. Other

major universities, including Harvard, Columbia, Michigan,

Ohio State, Minnesota, and Cornell are, indeed, very much

alike in many of these respects, and could have been

selected for this study.

Other prominent similarities included the general

use of standard texts and references. Those books by

Dana, Hitchcock, LeConte, Lyell and Geikie were the most

popular. Many institutions made extensive use of

government geological publications, annual reports,

monographs, topographic atlas sheets, etc., for

instruction and reference. For example, the University of

Washington reported extensive yse of "complete sets of the

"Bulletins of the Geological Society of America,"and the

"Journal of Geology."

There appeared to be few significant differences

in curriculum between the two women's colleges offering

geology at this time who responded to the questionnaire. 152

Vassar College had a larger number of offerings, of

standard variety, and a distinguished faculty. Smith

College had B.K. Emerson on a part-time basis from Amherst.

Diversification also characterized geological

instruction, to some degree, among many of these colleges

and universities. Some were more deeply mired in

religious concerns, typically Amherst and Oberlin, others

were obviously poor in both funds and stature. The

curricular offerings in some institutions, especially

those of Division 3, showed some evidence of a maturing

science and its instruction. A review of the 1893

catalog of The State University of Kentucky, on the other

hand, revealed an amazingly modern presentation in both

the philosophy and content of the geology curriculum.

Some institutions, particularly the smaller ones,

were restrained by courses or programs of studies being

taught in conjunction with the biological sciences,

chemistry and even mathematics. Also the instruction was

often by faculty in these disciplines. Somewhat unusual

cases were those of Professor Norton at Cornell College -

Professor of Greek and Geology - and President Stahr of

Franklin and Marshall College, whose professorial

responsibilities ranged from Moral Philosophy to German

and included Geology. The larger universities had

departmental organization in the earth sciences and fusually employed discipline specialists. . APPENDIX A

Questionnaire

Oepunneot o f Geology The Ohio State Uoiveislty 125 South Oval Drive Columbus, Ohio 43210 July IS . 1965

O eu Sit:

As I geologist interested in the history of our science, I am Investigating the beginnings of geology teaching in the colleges and universities o f this country. As chairman of the department of geology you may be able to supply the information X am seeking or you may wish to refer this letter to your University Archivist.

Much o f this material is in print and accessible to me, but a much larger amount is available only locally. May I ask you for your help in locating In- fnm ation of this kind for your department?II you w ill be kind enough to answer the attached. I shall be most grateful.

Realizing that this Is an imposition on die time of a very busy colleague, may I offer you a token of my appreciation for your cooperation by sending you - a small brochure on selected topics in the History of Geology on receipt of your reply?

Sincerely yours.

Rfchird P. Boekenkamp

153 154

INFORMATION ON THE BISTORT OF CEOLOCT PLEASE RETURN TO: Rlcbttd P. Boekeokamp, Oepattment of Geology, The Ohio State Unlvetalty, 125 Sou* Oval Drive, Coluntbu, Ohio 43210

1« When was geoio^ (iiit taught at your Inttltutlaa? What vas the tiature of the Instructloil?

9, When was a Depar«iii»ut of Cm htgy (,« njulvaleiu) rMAlUiilied jujr"»» fautitutloiiî tvhat cotaies were lurludcd In the rntririilutu ?

3« Is there a history o f your lostiiutloa tvhlch describes the development o f geology?

4a Do you know of a collection of annual bulletins describing coutset in geology in the EARLY years of yotit Institution?

C.* Would you ease to uaine the Iradiug prrsenaliries past aud/nr present in geology at your Instil tu tion? 155

INFORMATION ON THE HISTORY OF GEOLOGY, PAGE 2

6 . Does youi depoitmeat possess maausciipt material which could be used, with proper credit,a history for o f geology?

1 , Are diere any other sources or areas that m erit consideratioa o f which the investigator has been unaware or may have overlooked?

8 . Do you have any further suggestions or recommendations that would be helpful in this investigation? What would you lik e to see accomplished? APPENDIX B

Manual of Geology, J. D. Dana

TABLE OF CONTENTS.

INTEODUCTIOX. ria i Relations of the Science of G e o l o g y...... 1 Subdivisions of G e o lo g y ...... 7

PAST I —Physiograpliio Geology.

1. The Earth’s General Contour and Surface-subdivisions 9 2. System in the Kcliefs of the L a n d ...... 93 3. System In the Courses of the Earth’s Featurc-llnes ...... « 2 9 4. System of Oceanic Movements and Tem perature...... 38 6. Atmospheric Currents and Temperature 43 6. Distribution of Forest-rcgions, Prairies, and Deserts • . • • • 44

PABT n , — Lithological Geology,

I. CoxsTmmos o p R o c k s...... 47 J. Elements constituiing R o c k s...... 48 2. Minerals constituting R o c k s ...... • • 62 3. Rinds of R o c k s ...... 62

II. CosT>iTiox, Structcre, axi> Arrangem ent op Rock-Masses. . . 79 1. Stratidcd Condition: Structure nml Arrangement of Strata . . . 79 2. Unstratilled Condition— Veins — D i k e s ...... 107

BRIEF REVIEW OF THE SYSTEM OF L IF E ...... 114 1. General C o n s id e ra tio n s ...... 114 2. Animal K in g d o m ...... 116 3. Vegetable Kingdom ...... • • • 133

PAET rCL—Historical Geology.

G eoeiul Divisions int u b IIisTORr ...... 138

L ÂRCU.K.VN TIME ...... 148 1. I.aiircntlan P e r io d...... Ifil 2. iluruniaa Period ...... 139 3. General Conclusions...... 100

156 157

CONTESTS.

FAoe XL PALEOZOIC T O IE ...... 162 I . A o k OF I mvkktedrates , OR SiLuniAN A g e . 162 A . Lower S ilu r ia n ...... 166 1. Primordial or Cambrian Period . 166 3. Canadian P e rio d...... 182 3. Trenton Period...... 104 4. General Obscrrations on Ibe Lower Silurian 210 5. Disturbances at the close of the Lower Silurian Era 212 B. Upper S i l u r i a n ...... 218 1. North American Upper Silurian . . « . 218 L Niagara Period...... 218 3. Salina P e r i o d ...... 232 8. Lower Ileldcrberg Period.... 236 4 Oriskany P e r io d ...... 241 8. Foreign Upper Silurian .... 244 3. Observations on the Upper Silurian . 249

n . A g e o f F is h e s , o r D e v o x ia m A g e ...... 254 1. ^Linerican ...... 254 1. Coruiferous P e r i o d ...... 254 3. Hamilton P e r i o d ...... 266 3. Chemung P erio d...... 276 4 Catskill Period ...... 279 3. Foreign Devonian...... 282 3. General Observations on the Devonian Age . 286 4. Disturbances closing the Devonian Age 289

H L CARDONIFEROt'S A g E ...... 291 Subdivisions and American Distribution .... 291 1 . Subcarboiiiferons P erio d...... 293 L A m e r ie a ii...... 293 2. F o r e ig n ...... 306 3. Disturbances preceding the Carboniferous Period 363 3. Carboniferous P e r i o d ...... 309 1. American...... 399 2. F o r e i g n ...... 344 3. General Observations on tbe Origin of Coal and the Coal- measures ...... 351 3. Permian P e r io d ...... 367 1. American...... 367 2. Foreign...... 369

IV . G exeral Ouservatioxs on the Pai.eoeoic Ages . 373 1. Rocks — Sections of the American Paleozoic I'ormalionsin dif- feront States ...... 373 2. Life 331 3. American Geography 339 4, Oscillations of l.cvel — Dislocations . 391 V . DlSTl'ltnANCES CU'SI.NH PAt.EilZlltC TiME 395 1. sVmerican...... 395 3. F o r e ig n ...... 403

HL MESOZOIC TIME . 403 Kei'TII.ian A ge . 403 1. Triassic Period 403 1. American . 403 158

CONTENTS. XI

ZH. MESOZOIC T IM E — (cun/mutrf). »*«« 2. Foreign...... *I2^Î 3. General O b s e n 'a tio n s ...... 42Ü S. Jurassic P e r i o d ...... 431 1. American 431 2. F o r e i g n ...... ' • • 433 3. General O b s e rv a tio n s ...... 450 4. DUiurbaiiccs closing tbe Jurassic Period . • • • 452 3. Cretaceous P e r i o d...... 453 1. A m e r ic a n...... • 454 2. F o r e i g n ...... 409 3* General Observations . . . . . • • • 477 4. General Ob.^en'ations on the Mesozoic Age . • . • 481 5. Disturbances closing Mesozoic T i m e ...... 487

IV. CENOZOIC T D IE ...... , 488 I . T h e T e k t i a k v , o n M a m m a l ia n A g e . . . . . 480 1. A m e ric a n...... 490 2. Foreign...... 512 3. General O b s e r v a tio n s ...... 520

n . QUATEnNARY A«E, AND E rA OP M a N ...... 527 1. Glacial P e r iu d * 527 2. Champlain i'criod...... 542 3. Recent P e r io d...... 550 4. Life of the lùirly and Middle Quatcmar/ . . . . 503 5. Modem E r a ...... 570 I I I . General Observations on the C e n o z o i c ...... 585 , 1. T i m e - lia t io s ...... 585 2. Geography...... 580 a. Life -, 688

V. GENERAL OIÏSEUVATIONS ON GEOLOGICAL HISTORY . . 590 1. Length of Geological T i m e...... 500 2. Geographical Ptogress ...... 591 3. Progress of L ife ...... 602

PABT 17.—Dynamical Geology.

Gekrrai . Sudiiivisions ...... 005 I . L u 'e ...... 600 ]. Protective F . f T c c t...... A 000 3. Tmii^portliii.' F.lTocti...... 007 3. Dcslnictivo E lT c c ts...... 007 4. Conlributiuiu to Ituck FoniiationA...... 008

II. Co h es ive AND Ca i 'il l .viiy A ttraction — G r a v it a t io n . . . 627

III. T he A TH iisniE R E ...... eao

IV . W a t e r ...... 633 1. Fresh W a t e r s ...... 638 A. Supertlcial Waters — Rivers and Smaller Lakes .... 830 1. E r u s i o n ...... 641 2. Traiisporlatiim ; Depositioa ...... 653 B. Subterranean W a t e r s ...... 063 159

XII CONTENTS.

IV . WATER — (eontinutd). FACE 2. Tbe Ocean— including also Large Lakes . 668 1. Oceanic Forces— Currents . . 668 2. Effects of Oceanic Forces . 676 1. Erosion ...... 675 2. Transportation and Deposition . 677 3. Structure of Deposits . . . . 634 4. Action over a Submerged Continent 686 8. Freezing and Frozen Water .... . 687 1. Freezing Water .... 687 2. Ice of Rivers and Lakes . 688 3. G la c ie r s...... 688 4. Icebergs ...... 701 4. Water as a Chemical Agent 702 1. Destructive Work .... . 702 2. Formative Work .... 707

V . H e a t ...... 712 1. Sources of H eat...... 714 2. Dilatation and Contraction...... 720 3. Igneous Action and R e s u l t s ...... 722 1. \olcanoes ...... 722 2. Non-volcunic Igneous Eruptions .... 740 8. Heat of Lavas and Conditions of Igneous Action . 743 4. Thermal Waters — G e y s e r s ...... 749 4. M e ta m o rp h is m ...... 754 5. Minerai Veins, Lodes, Local Ore deposits 770

V I . T h e E a r t h a Co o u n o Ot-oiiEr rrs C onsequerces . 782 1. Actuaiity of Changes of L e v e i...... 782 2. Facts about Mountains ...... 785 3. Origin of Mountains and of the Attendant Phenomena 798 1. Explanations of the Subordinate Phenomena . 798 2. Fundamental Agency in Mountain Making 808 3. Mode of Working and the Effects . 816 4. Evolution of the Earth's Fundamental Features 826

V III. EFKEtrrs referred to th e ir Causes. RECArrrcLAHOx . 837

COSMOGONY 845

APPÇNDIX. A . Kew Palcoioic, Triasaîe, and Jurassic V e r te b ra te *...... 851 B. Catalofïuc of American Localities of Fossils...... 652 C* Brief SynopMs of this Manual . . . «.. . • • • • 855 O. Authorities for the Figures of Foisils, Sections, &nd Viewi .... 863 E. Suggestions to Working Geologist* ...... • 868

■ INDEX . 871 APPENDIX C

Henry Augustus Ward Papers

THE Ward collection consists of letters, diaries, account books, newspaper clippings, pamphlets, catalogues, and photographs covering the period 1849 to 1906. Approxi­ mately five thousand of the more important letters have been indexed, including letters from such well-known sci­ entists as Louis and Alexander Agassiz, S, F. Baird, J. A, Allen, G. B-. Goode, James Hall, F. A. Lucas, W. T. Horn- aday, John Torrey and many others. The remainder of the letters is divided into two groups: about seven thousand business letters and five hundred family letters extending over the period from 1850 to 1906, These are each ar­ ranged chronologically, but are not indexed. Supplement­ ing the business letters are nineteen small account books and five folders of mining reports, contracts, and bank­ ruptcy papers. There are thirty-one volumes of journals and diaries beginning with the first diary Ward kept at Wyoming in 1850 and ending with a journal of his trip to Bogota in 1906. There is also a folder of notes taken while he was a student at the Ecole des Mines in Paris from 1855 to 1857. In addition to manuscript materials, the Ward collection contains newspaper clippings, pamphlets, photographs and slides. There are twenty-one folders of newspaper clip­ pings comprising material by and about Ward from 1850 to 1906. The pamphlets are catalogued as are also peri­ odical articles in this group. Included in the published material are early catalogues of Ward’s Natural Science Establishment and biographical sketches of Henry A. Ward. Photographs and slides are arranged by subject in folders and boxes. The Ward papers are located in the Local History Division, Rush Rhees Library, the University of Rochester.

160 BIBLIOGRAPHY AND OTHER SOURCES

A. Books and Similar Materials

Aalto, Kenneth R. 1969. "Professionalization of Pre- Civil War North American Geology." Jour. Geological Education, vol. XVII, no. 3, pp 91-94.

Adams, S. C. 1962. "A Century and A Quarter of Geology at Hanover College." Indiana Academy of Science Proceedings, vol. 72, pp. 243-245.

Armes, William D ., (ed.). 1903. "The Autobiography of Joseph LeConte." D. Appleton and Company, N.Y., 337 pp.

Back, William. 1959. "Emergence of Geology as a Public Function, 1800-1879." Jour, of Washington Acad. Sciences, vol. 49, no. 7, pp. 205-209.

Barwick, A. R. and May, T. C. 1940. "Curricula of Geology in the United States." Cath. Ed. Review, vol. 39, June, pp. 335-340.

Bassler, Ray S. 1933. "Development of Invertebrate Paleontology in America." Presidential Address, Bull. Geol. Soc. America, vol. 44, April 30, pp. 265-286.

Bayley, W. Shirley. 1927. "Contributions of Hopkins to Geology." Johns Hopkins University, Studies, in Geology, no. 8, pp. 9-24.

Benjamin, Marnes. 1922. "The Beginnings of American Geology." Science, New. Ser., vol. 56, Oct. 27, pp. 480-481.

Bernal. J. D. 1965. "Science in History." Hawthorn Books, Inc., N. Y . , 1039 pp.

161 162

Blatchley, Willis S. 1917. "A Century of Geology in Indiana." Indiana Academy of Science, Pro­ ceedings, 1916., Ft. Wayne, pp. 97-98.

Branner, John C. 1902. "Syllabus of a Course of Lectures on Elementary Geology." 2nd ed. , Stanford University, 369 pp.

. 1906. "The University Training of Engineers in Economic Geology." Economic Geology, vol. 1, no. 3, Dec.-Jan., The Economic Geology Press Co., pp. 289-294.

Brickman, William W. 1949. "Guide to Research in Ed­ ucational History." New York University Book­ store, 220 pp.

Brooks, Alfred H. 1912. "Geology - Applied Geology." Jour, of the Washington Academy of Science, vol. II, no. 2, Jan. 19, pp. 19-48.

Bruce, Philip A. 1921. "History of the University of Virginia 1818-1919." Centennial Ed., vol. Ill, The MacMillan Company, N.Y., 403 pp.

Bryan, Kirk. 1941. "Physiography (1888-1938)." Geol. Soc. America, 50th Anniversary Volume, New York, pp. 1-5.

Cajori, Florian. 1890. "The Teaching and History of Mathematics in the United States." Bureau Ed. Circular of Info., no. 3, whole no. 167, Washington, 395 pp.

Canfield, J.H. 1897. "The Teacher's Character." Annual Report of the President of The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, pp. 34-35.

Chamberlin, Rollin. 1931. "Memorial of Rollin D. Salisbury." Bull. Geol. Soc. of America, vol. 42, pp. 126-138.

Chamberlin, Thomas C. 1893. "The Relations of Geology to Physiography in Our Educational System." The National Geographic Magazine, vol. V, pp. 154-160.

. 1903. "History of the Department of Geology, University of Chicago." The Presi­ dent's Report, Administration, The Decennial Publications, First Series, vol. I, The Univ. 163

of Chicago Press, pp. 443-446.

. 1924. "75 Years of American Geology." Science, new serv., vol. 59, Feb. 8, pp. 127-135.

Chamberlin, Willis A. 1956. "Some Historical Aspects of Scientific Work at Denison University (Ohio)." Denison Univ. Sci. Lab. Jour., vol. 44, art. 1-2, June, pp. 1-15.

Chittenden, Russell H. 1928. "History of the Sheffield Scientific School of Yale University, 1846- 1922." New Haven, Yale Univ. Press, vol. 2, p. 424.

Chronic, Byron J. 1957. "Bibliography of Theses Written for Advanced Degrees in Geology and Related Science at Universities and Colleges in U.S. and Canada Through 1957." John and Halka Chronic and Petroleum Research Corp., Boulder, Colo., Pruett Press.

Clarke, John M. 1899. "Relation of New York State Paleontology to the Schools and Colleges." New York Univ., Regents B, no. 48, pp. 359-364.

Cleland, Herdman F. 1922. "Demonstration Material in Geology." Bull. Geol. Soc. America, vol. 33, pp. 56-85.

Cohen, Bernard I. 1959. "Some Reflections on the State of Science in America During the Nineteenth Century." National Academy of Science Proceed­ ings, vol. 45, pp. 666-677.

Collie, George L. and Densmore, Hiram D. 1932. "Thomas C. Chamberlin and Rollin D. Salisbury, A Beloit College Partnership." State Historical Society of Wisconsin, The Antes Press, Evansville, Wis., 116 pp.

Cope, Edward D. 1890. "Syllabus of Lectures on Geology and Paleontology." Part I, Geology, Ferris Bros., Philadelphia, 47 pp.

Crosby, W.O. 1888. "Methods of Instruction in Mineralogy and Structural Geology, in the Massachusetts Institute of Technology." Technology Quarterly, vol. I, no. 3, Feb., pp. 187-194. 164

Dana, F.S., et.al. 1918. "A Century of Science in America." New Haven, Yale University Press, 458 pp.

Dana, James D. 1880. "Manual of Geology." Ivison, Blakeman and Company, N. Y., 3rd edition.

______. 1890. "Biographical Memoir of Arnold Guyot." Annual Rept. of Smithsonion Inst., 1886-87, Govt. Printing Office, Wash., D.C., pp. 693-722.

Daniels, George, (ed.). 1968. "Darwinism Comes to America." Blaisdell Publ. Company, Waltham, Mass.

______. 1971. "Science in American Society. Alfred A. Knopf.

Darton, N.S. 1896. "Catalog and Index to North American Geology : 1732-1891." Govt. Printing Office, Wash., D.C.

Davis, William M. 1887. "Instruction in Geologic Investigation." Am. Naturalist, vol. 21, pp. 810-825.

. 1894. "The Improvement of Geography Teaching." vol. V, National Geog. Magazine. Presented before Geog. Society, Feb. 3, 1893.

______1895. "The Need of Geography in the University." Educational Review, vol. 10, pp. 22-41.

. 1906. "The Relationship of the Earth Sciences in View of Their Progress in the 19th Century.", Congress of Arts and Sciences, St. Louis 1904, pp. 488-503, Boston, 1906.

. 1911. "The Disciplinary Value of Geography." Pop. Sci. Monthly, N.Y., Feb. and March.

Davis, William M. and Daly, Reginald A. 1930. "Geology and Geography, 1858-1929: The Development of Harvard University." S.E. Morison, ed., Chapter 19, Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, Mass., pp. 307-328. 165 Deussen, Alexander. 1941-42. "Memorial to Frederic Will­ iam Simonds." Geol. Soc. America Proceedings, pp. 193-200.

"Directory of Geoscience Departments, United States and Canada." 1964, 1970. American Geological Institute, Washington, D.C.

Dupree, A. Hunter. 1962. "What Manuscripts The Historian Wants Saved." Isis, LIII, March, pp. 63-66.

______. (ed.). 1963. "Science and The Emergence of Modern America, 1865-1916." Berkeley Series in Am. History, Rand McNally and Company, Chicago.

_. 1966. "The History of American Science- A Field Finds Itself." Am. Historical Review, vol. 71, pp. 863-874.

Dutcher, George M. 1948. "An Historical and Critical Sur­ vey of the Curriculum of Wesleyan University and Related Subjects." Wesleyan Univ., Conn., 74 pp.

Emerson, Benjamin K. 1915. "The Geological and Mineralogical Collections of Amherst College." Amherst Graduates' Quarterly, pp. 17-24.

1916. "The Geological and Mineralogical Collections of Amherst College." Amherst Graduates' Quarterly, pp. 97-102.

Fairchild, H. LeRoy. 1915. "Memoir of Joseph LeConte." Bull. Geol. Soc. America, vol. 26, pp. 46-57.

______. 1921. (Review of) "Textbook of Geology by Amadeus W. Grabau." Science, new serv., vol. 54, Nov. 18, 1921, pp. 494-497.

______. 1924. "The Development of Geologic Science." Sci. Monthly, vol. 19, no. 1, July, pp. 77-101.

______. 1932. "The Geological Society of America 1888-1930 - A Chapter in Earth History." Geol. Soc. America, 232 pp.

Farrington, O.C. 1895. "J.D. Dana As A Teacher." Jour. Geology, vol. 3, pp. 335-340.

Fisher, Daniel J. 1963. "The Seventy Years of the Depart­ ment of Geology, University of Chicago, 1892-1961." Univ. of Chicago Press. 166

Pleener, Frank L. 1945. "Dana of the Danas." Mineralogist, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 34, 16-22, (including abstract).

Florey, Lord. 1965. "Role of the Scientist in Modern Society: The First Three Hundred Years." Role of the Scientist in Modern Society, Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, Spring, pp. 279-2 88.

Fontaine, William M. 1898-1899. "Notes of the Lectures on . Geology, University of Virginia." pt. 1: 173 pp., pt. 2: 153 pp., pt. 3: 174 pp.

. 1904. "Notes of the Lectures on Geology Delivered in the B. A. Course at the University of Virginia." 2nd ed., revised and enlarged, 541 pp.

French, John C. 1946. "A History of the University Found­ ed by John Hopkins." The Johns Hopkins Press, 492 pp.

Fulton, John F ., and Thomson, Elizabeth H. 1947. "Benjamin Silliman 1779-1864, Pathfinder in American Science." vol. XIII, illus., Henry Schuman, New York, 294 pp.

______. 1948. "Benjamin Silliman and the Founding of the Sheffield Scientific School." Am. Sci., vol. 36, no. 1, Jan., pp. 102-110.

Geologist's Biographical Sketches. 1897. "The National Cyclopedia of American Biography." James T. White and Company, New York.

. 1946. "Dictionary of American Biography." Charles Scribners Sons, New York.

Gibbs, David. 1907. "The Pedagogy of Geography." Pedagogical Seminary, vol. 14, pp. 39-100.

Gilbert, Grove K. 1881. "Report British Association." p. 732.

. 1912. "Memoir of Edwin E. Howell." Bull. Geol. Soc. America, vol. 23, pp. 30-31.

Gilman, D.C. 1899. "The Life of James Dwight Dana." Harper and Bros., New York. 167 Ginger, Ray. 1965. "Age of Excess; The United States from 1877 to 1914." MacMillan Company, New York, 386 pp.

Gregory, Herbert E. 1919. "Cooperation in Advanced Geologic Instruction." Am. Jour, of Science, vol. XLVII, April, pp. 281-286.

1921. "History of Geology." Sci. Monthly, vol. 12, no. 2, Feb., pp. 97-126.

Hale, Harrison. 1932. "The History of Chemical Education in the United States from 1870-1914." Jour. Chemical Education, vol. 9, no. 4, April, pp. 729-744.

Handschin, Charles H. 1913. "The Teaching of Modern Languages in the United States." U.S. Govt. Printing Office Bull. no. 3, whole no. 510, Washington, 154 pp.

Hawkins, Hugh. 1960. "Pioneer: A History of the Johns Hopkins University 1874-1889." Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York, 368 pp.

Haywood, Ernest. 1879-1880. Unpublished lecture outline on "General Geology" by Professor Frederic W. Simonds, University of North Carolina. Loaned through the kindness of Professor Aurele LaRocque, Dept, of Geology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.

Hendrickson, Walter B. 1961. "Nineteenth Century State of Geological Surveys - Early Government Support of Science." Isis, vol. 52, pt. 3, no. 169, pp. 357-371.

Hewett, Waterman T. 1905. "Cornell University: A History." vol. 2, The Department of Geology, The University Publishing Society, New York, pp. 228-244.

Hitchcock, Edward. 1840. "Elementary Geology." J.S. and C. Adams, Boston, Mass., 329 pp.

______1841. "History of Geological Studies in the United States." Am. Jour. Science, vol. 41, pp. 232-275.

• ______. 1851. "The Religion of Geology and Its Connected Sciences." Glasgow, London, W. Collins, 40 8 pp., (also listed published in Boston, Mass., 1852) . 168 . 1855. "Lectures on Geology - Pall Term, 1855." President Edward Hitchcock Papers, Section IV, Lectures, Box XI, Folder 11, June, 1968, Announcement Amherst College Library, Mass.

1863. "Reminiscences of Amherst College." Bridgman and Childs, Northampton, Mass., 412 pp.

Hobbs, William H. 1952. "The Autobiography of William Herbert Hobbs - An Explorer-Scientist's Pil­ grimage." J.W. Edwards, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan, 222 pp.

Hollister, Paul L. 1939. "Development of the Teaching of Introductory Biology in American Colleges." George Peabody College for Teachers, Nashville, Tenn.

Hopkins, T.C. 1896. "Geology in the Colleges and Univ­ ersities of the United States." Report of the Commissioner of Education, 1893-94, vol. 1, U.S. Govt. Printing Office, Wash., pp. 819-872.

______. 1896. "Geology in the Colleges and Univ­ ersities of the United States." Science, vol. IV, no. 92, Oct. 2, (Discussion and Correspondence), pp. 497-498.

Horberg, C.L. 1953. "Current Trends in Geology and Their Relations to Geological Education." Jour. Geo­ logical Education, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 1-6.

Ives, J.T.B. 1887. "Geology in the Public Schools." Royal Canadian Institute Proceedings, 3rd ser., vol. 5, pp. 124-129.

Jensen, Mead L. 1952. "One Hundred and Fifty Years of Geology at Yale." Am. Jour. Science, vol. 250, no. 11, Nov., pp. 808-821.

"Johns Hopkins University, Fifty Years Progress in Geo­ logy, 1876-1926." 1927. Papers, Johns Hopkins University Press.

Kemp, James F. 1895. "Lecture Notes on Rocks." Sch. Mines Quarterly, vol. 17, pp. 38-56, 126-159, 267-295, 401-434.

. 1921. "Amherst in Science." Amherst Graduates Quarterly, Vol. X, no. 4, August, pp. 270-275. 169

Keyes, C.R. 1920. "Hopkins Contributions to American Geology." Johns Hopkins Univ. Alumni Magazine, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 136-141.

. 1921. "When Hopkins Geology was in Flower." Johns Hopkins Univ. Alumni Magazine, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 204-212.

Laird, Wilson M. 1955. "The History of the Geology Department at the University of North Dakota." Compass, vol. 32, no. 2, Jan., pp. 153-156.

Lapworth, Charles. 1902-03. "The Relations of Geology." Annual Rept. of the Smithsonian Institute, section on Geology and Education, pp. 363-390.

LaRocque, Aurele, (ed.). 1961. "Biographies of Geo­ logists." unpublished. Department of Geology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.

______. 1964."Biblography of The History of Geology." unpublished. Department of Geology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.

Lawson, Andrew C. 1901. "Joseph LeConte." Sci., new serv., vol. 14, no. 347, pp. 273-277.

LeConte, Joseph L. 1895. "Elements of Geology." Appleton and Company, New York.

. 1900. "A Century of Geology." Pop. Sex. Monthly, vol. 56, pp. 431-443, 546-556.

. 1967. "Examinations in Geology South Carolina University 1857, 1869." Geotimes, vol. 12, no. 4, p. 18.

LeDuc, Thomas. 1945. "Piety and Intellect at Amherst College 1865-1912." Columbia University Press, New York, 165 pp.

Leith, C.K. 1906. "The University Training of Engineers in Economic Geology." Economic Geology, vol. 1, pp. 476-481.

Lesley, J. Peter. 1877. "Memoir of Edward Hitchcock 1793- 1864." Nat. Ac. Sci. Biographical Memoirs, vol. 1, pp. 113-134. 170 "List of 120 Articles on Geography in Schools and Colleges." 1918. Jour. Geography, vol. XVI, ■ no. 10, June, p. 361...

Longwell, C.R. 1946. "Second Conference on Training in Geology." Interim Proceedings, Bull. Geol. Soc. America, pt. 4, June, pp. 1-39.

Lowrey, Charles E. 1889-90. "Doctor Winchell and Geology." Education, vol. 10, pp. 387-389.

Lurie, Edward. 1964-65. "An Interpretation of Science in the Nineteenth Century: A Study in History and Historiography." Jour. World History, vol. 8, pp. 681-706.

Manning, Thomas G. 1967. "Government in Science - The U.S. Geological Survey, 1867-1894." University of Kentucky Press, Lexington, Kentucky, 257 pp.

Marbut, C.F. 1905. "Physiography in the University." Jour. Geography, vol. 4, pp. 23-30.

Mathews, Edward B. 1913. "Bibliography of the Faculty and Students of the Department of Geology of Johns Hopkins University 1883-1913." John Hopkins Press.

. 1920. "Relation of Student and Teacher." Bull. Geol. Soc. America, vol. 31, pp. 393-394.

Mathews, Edward B . , (ed.). 1927. "Fifty Years' Progress in Geology 1876-1926." The Johns Hopkins Univ­ ersity Studies in Geology, no. 8, Oct., 1926 couf., Johns Hopkins Press. 161 pp.

Mathews, Edward B. and Little, Homer P. 1921. "Geology and Geography in the United States." Bull. Geol. Soc. America, vol. 32, June, pp.. 227-248.

McCormmach, Russell, (ed.). 1969. "Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences." vol. I, University of Pa. Press.

McGee, W J 1888. "The Classification of Geographic Forms by Genesis." National Geographic Magazine, vol. 1, pp. 27-36. 171

______. 1890. "Geology for 1887 and 1888." Annual Rept. of Smithsonian Institution, 1887-88. U.S. Govt. Printing Office, Wash., pp. 217-260.

"Medical Men As Geologists." 1913. New York Medical Journal, Scientific Monthly (American?) Supplement, vol. 75, p. 103.

Meisel, Max. 1929. "Bibliography of American Natural History: The Pioneer Century, 1769-1865." 3 vols.. Premier Publishing Company, New York.

Mendenhall, W.C. 1937. "Development and Present Status of Geology in North America." Bull. Geol. Soc. America, vol. 48, March, pp. 349-364.

Merrill, George P. 1906. "University Training of Engineers in Economic Geology." Economic Geology, vol. 1, pp. 387-391.

. 1906. "Contributions to the History of American Geology." U.S. National Museum Annual Report 1903-1904, U.S. Govt. Printing Office, Wash., pp. 189-733.

1920. "Contributions to A History of American State Geological and Natural History Surveys." U.S. Nat. Mus. Bull. 109, Wash., 549 pp.

. 1924. "The First Hundred Years of American Geology." 1906 Report, Yale University Press, New Haven.

Morison, Samuel E . , (ed.). 1930. "The Development.,of Harvard University, Since the Inauguration of President Eliot 1869-1929." History of the Department of Geology and Geography (Davis and Daly), Harvard University Press, 660 pp.

Morison, W. J. 1971. "George Frederick Wright: In Defense of Darwinism and Fundamentalism." Ph.D. Dissertation, Vanderbilt, Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 459 pp. 172

Morris, Rita M.L. 1962. "An Examination of Some Factors Related to the Rise and Decline of Geography As A Field of Study at Harvard, 1638-1948." Unpub­ lished Ed.D. Thesis, Harvard University.

Nash, Gerald D. 1963. "The Conflict Between Pure and Applied Science in Nineteenth Century Public Policy: The California State Geological Survey, 1860-1874." Isis, vol. 54, pt. 2, no. 176, pp. 217-228.

Norton, W.H. 1918. "Earth Science in American Colleges and Universities." School and Society, vol. 8, no. 207, Dec., pp. 702-706.

O'Connor, Michael J.L. 1944. "Origins of Academic Economics in the United States." Columbia Univ­ ersity Press, 367 pp.

Orton, Edward, Sr. 1874. "Inaugural Address, President, The Ohio State University." The Ohio State Univ­ ersity Annual Reports, 1-8, 1872-78.

Packard, Alpheus S. 1892. "Why We Should Teach Geology." The Pop. Sci. Monthly, vol. XLI, May to Oct., pp. 73-77.

Pangborn, Mark W . , Jr. 1958. "History of the Popular­ ization of Geology in America: A Bibliographical Survey." (abst.). Bull. Geol. Soc. America, vol. 69, Oct.-Dec., p. 1767.

Penrose, R.A.F., Jr. 1929. "The Early Days of the Depart­ ment of Geology at the University of Chicago." Jour. Geol., vol. 37, pp. 320-327.

Pierson, George W. 1952. "Yale College An Educational History: 1871-1921." vol. 1, Yale University Press, New Haven, 773 pp.

Pirsson, L.W. 1918. "The Rise of Petrology As A Science." Am. Jour. Sci., 4th serv., vol. 46, pp. 222-239.

Porter, Noah. 1878. "The American Colleges and The American Public." Charles Scribner's Sons, N. Y . , 408 pp.

Poteat, W.L. 1893. "The Effect on the College Curriculum of the Introduction of the Natural Sciences." Science, vol. XXI, no. 530, March, pp. 170-172. 173

Prouty, C.E. 1961. "Curriculum Survey of Degree Granting Departments." Geotimes, vol. 6, Oct., pp. 28-34.

Redway, J.W. 1894. "The Statas of Geography Teaching." Educational Review, vol. 7, Jan., pp. 33-41.

Reingold, Nathan, (ed). 1964. "Science in Nineteenth Century America." American Century Series, Hill and Wang, New York.

Rogers, H.D. 1835. "A Guide to a Course of Lectures on Geology." W.P. Gibbons, Philadelphia, 43 pp.

Rosenberger, Jesse L. 1927. "Rochester The Making of A University." The University of Rochester, New York, 333 pp.

Rudolph, Frederick, 1965. "The American College and University, A History." First Vintage Ed., Aug., Vintage Books, Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., Bibliography, pp. 502-513.

Ryan, W. Carson. 1939. "Studies in Early Graduate Education." (Johns Hopkins, Clark, Univ. Chicago), The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, Bull. #30, 522 5th Avenue, New York, 167 pp.

Sage, Lillian B. 1900-01. "A Practical and Profitable Experiment in the New Method of Teaching Geology." Education, vol. 21, pp. 463-468.

Salisbury, Rollin D. 1909. "The Teaching of Geography - A Criticism and A Suggestion." Jour. Geography, vol. Ill, no. 3, Nov., pp. 49-55.

Schneer, Cecil J., (ed.). 1969. "Toward A History of Geology." The Massachusetts Institute of Tech­ nology Press, Cambridge.

Schuchert, Charles. 1918. "A Century of Geology - The Progress of Historical Geology in North America." Am. Jour. Science, 4th serv., vol. 46. pp. 45-103.

"Science in American Colleges." 1882. The Century Mag­ azine, vol. XXIII, VO. 6, April, pp. 946-947.

Sears, Jesse B. 1922. "Philanthropy in the History of American Higher Education." Bureau of Ed., Dept, of Interior, Bull. No. 26, U.S. Govt. Printing Office, Wash., 112 pp. 174

Shaler, Nathaniel S. 1896. "Relations of Geologic Science to Education." Science, vol. Ill, no. 69, April, pp. 609-617.

. 1903. "Practical Methods of Teaching Geology." N.E.A. Addresses and Proceedings, 42, Boston, Mass., pp. 848-852.

1909. "The Autobiography of ..." Houghton Mifflin Co., The Riverside Press, Cambridge, 481 pp.

Shimer, H. Unpublished "History of Geology", Archives, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Shrock, Robert R. 1972. "The Geologists Crosby of Boston." Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, 175 pp (incl. 79 pp. Appendix).

"Silliman, Benjamin." 1865. American Jour. Science and Arts, vol. 39, no. 115, Jan., pp. 1-9.

Simonds, Frederic W. 1846. "Geology in the College and Universities of the United States." Science, N.S., vol. 4, pp. 497-498.

Smallwood, Mary L. 1935. "An Historical Study of Examinations and Grading Systems in Early American Universities." Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 128 pp.

Smith, Wilson. 1961. "The New Historian of American Education." Harvard Educational Review, vol. XXXI, pp. 136-143.

Snow, Louis P. 1907. "College Curriculum in the United States." printed for the author, Columbia University, Teacher's College, New York.

Stevenson, John J. 1893. "John Strong Newberry." American Geologist, vol. XII, no. 1, July, pp. 1-25.

Storr, Richard J. 1953. "The Beginnings of Graduate Education in America." The University of Chicago Press.

Struik, Dirk J. 1962. "Yankee Science in the Making." Collier Books, New York, 544 pp.

Swartz, C.K. 1936. "Geological Education." Bull. Geol. Soc. America, vol. 47, pp. 187-196. 175

Tenney, Sanborn. 1860. "Geology for Teachers, Classes, and Private Students." E.H. Butler and Company, Philadelphia, 320 pp.

Thwing, Charles F. 1897. "The American College in American Life." G. P. Putnauis Sons, New York, 313 pp.

Tilton, John L. 1928. "History of the Development of the Department of Geology at West Virginia University." abstract. West Virginia Acad. Sci. Proc., vol. 2 (West Virginia Univ. Bull. Serv. no. 29, no. 1), pp. 137-139.

Tomikel, John. 1972. "Trends in American Geological Ed­ ucation During the Critical Years 1954-1969." Allegheny Press, Pittsburgh, 90 pp.

Trager, Thomas N. 1965. "The Influence of Professor Joseph LeConte in the Major Novels of Frank Norris." Unpublished M.A. Thesis, English, The Ohio State University.

Trow's Colleagues, 1972. "Arthur C. Trowbridge, 1885- 1971." Jour. Geol. Education, vol. 20, no. 4, September, p. 196.

True, Alfred C. 1929. "A History of Agricultural Educa­ tion in the United States, 1785-1925." U.S. Gov­ ernment Printing Office, Wash., 436 pp.

University Bulletins and Catalogs. Survey of the period 1875-1900 and selected years for institutions included in this study.

Van Tassel, David D. and Hall, Michael G . , (eds.). 1966. "Science and Society in the United States." The Dorsey Press, Homewood, Illinois.

Veysey, Laurence R. 1965. "The Emergence of the American University." The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 505 pp.

Wadsworth, Marshman E. 1884. "Methods of Instruction in Mineralogy." Popular Sci. Monthly, vol. 24, pp. 754-759.

Walcott, Charles D. 1891-92. "The Relations of the National Government to Higher Education and Research." University Chicago Record, vol. 6, pp. 40-49. 176 Walton, Matt, (éd.). 1963. "Kline Geology Laboratory: Yale University." The Carl Purington Rollins Printing Office, Yale University Press, 28 pp.

Ward, Roswell. 1948. "Henry A. Ward, Museum Builder of America." The Rochester Historical Society Pub­ lications, vol. XXIV, Rochester, New York, 297 pp.

Watson, Thomas L. 1914. "Memorial to William M. Fontaine." Bull. Geol. Soc. America, vol. 25, pp. 6-13.

Watts, W.W. 1903. "The Functions of Geology in Education and in Practical Life." Science, new serv., vol. 18, no. 458, October, pp. 450-465.

Weaver, Charles E. 1955. "A Century of Progress in the Natural Sciences, 1853-1953." California Acad. Sci., San Francisco, pp. 6 89-745.

Wentworth, Chester K. 1933. "American Doctorates in Geology." Jour. Geology, vol. XLI, pp. 432-438.

Westgate, Lewis G. 1910. "Geology in a College Course." Ed. Review, vol. 39, pp. 325-332.

. 1912. "The Geological Progress of 25 Years." Ohio State Ac. Sci. Pr., vol. 6, pp. 20-42.

White, George W. 1953. "Early American Geology." Sci. Monthly, vol. 76, no. 3, March, pp. 134-141.

' 1967. "The First Appearance in Ohio of The Theory of Continental Glaciation." The Ohio Jour, of Science, vol. 67, no. 4, July, pp 210-217.

Williams, F.E. 1918. "Summer Courses in Geography." Jour. Geography, vol. XVI, no. 10, June, pp. 403-406.

Williams, Henry Shaler. 1887. "Methods of Instruction in General Geology." American Naturalist, vol. XXI, J.B. Lippincott Co., Phila., pp. 616-626.

1893. "Geology as a Part of a College Curriculum." Jour. Geology, vol. 1, pp. 37-46.

Willis, Bailey. 1942. "American Geology 1850-1900." Science, vol. 96, no. 2486, August, pp. 167-172.

Wilson, Leonard G. 1967. "The Emergence of Geology as a Science in the United States." Jour. World History, vol. X, pp. 416-437. 177 Winchell, Alexander. 1870. "Syllabus of a Course of Lectures on Geology to be Delivered in the University of Michigan, in the months of February and March, 1870." Univ. Michigan, Ann Arbor, 18 pp.

1875. "Syllabus of a Course of Lectures on Geology to be Delivered in the Syracuse University During the Winter Terms 1875-76." Syracuse, 32 pp.

1879. "Syllabus of Courses of Lectures and Instruction in General Geology with References to Sources of Information." (Univ. of Mich.?), Ann Arbor, 115 pp.

______. 1884. "Thoughts on Science Teaching." Fortnightly Index, O.S. no. 31, N.S. no. 6, Ann Arbor, Michigan, pp. 6-8.

______. 1888. "Geology as a Means of Culture.' American Geologist, vol. 2, pp. 44-51, 100-114.

______. 1889. "Shall We Teach Geology?" S.C. Griggs and Co., Chicago, 217 pp.

Winchell, Newton H. 1892. "Memorial Sketch of Alexander Winchell." Bull. Geol. Soc. America, vol. 3, pp. 3-13.

Winsted, Huldah L. 1912. "Geography in American Univer­ sities." Jour. Geography, vol. X, no. 10, June, pp. 309-316.

Wittmer, Paul W. 1967. "The Secularization of Geology Textbooks in the United States in the Nineteenth Century." (unpublished, Ph.D. dissertation. New York University), 372 pp.

Woodbridge, Frederick, J.E. 1921. "Amherst in Education." Amherst Graduates Quarterly, vol. X, no. 4, August, pp. 256-263.

Wright, George F . 1878. "The Proper Attitude of Religious Teachers Towards Scientific Experts." New Englander, vol. 37, November, pp. 776-789.

Yeomans, Henry A. 1948. "Abbott Laurence Lowell, 1856- 1943." (concerning Nathaniel S. Shaler), Harvard University Press, Cambridge, pp. 246-247. 178

Zittelf Karl A. 1901. "History of Geology and Paleontology to the end of the Nineteenth Century." C. Scribner's Sons, New York, 562 pp.

Zuidema, Henry P. 1947. "Discovery of Letters by Lyell and Darwin." (with reference to Powell's work) Jour. Geology, vol. 55, no. 5, September, pp. 439- 445.

B. Selected Questionnaires, Correspondence and Other Communications Useful In This Study

Alfred University - David M. Leach - Dean, College of Arts and Sciences, August 14, 1967.

Amherst College - Rena M. Durkan, Curatrix, August 12, 1965; Richard M. Foose, Chairman Dept, of Geology, September 8, 1965.

Antioch College - Jane Cope, Assoc. Curator Olive Kettering Library, July 27, 1965.

Brown University - Alonzo W. Quinn, Professor of Geology, July 23, 1965.

Brigham Young University - Lehi F. Hintze, Chairman Dept, of Geology, July 26, 1965.

University of Chicago - Margaret McFadden, Assistant Curator for Manuscripts and Archives, September 6, 1972; Albert M. Tannler, Archives Research Assistant Special Collections, September 20, 1972.

Cornell College - Herbert E. Hendricks, Chairman Dept, of Geology, September 2, 1965.

Denison University - Charles E. Graham, Chairman Dept, of Geology and Geography, August 15, 1965.

Dickinson College - William W. Virgin, Jr., Chairman Dept, of Geology, August 2, 1965.

Earlham College - Ansel M. Gooding, Chairman Dept, of Geology, July 26, 1965. 179 Franklin and Marshall College - Herbert B. Anstaett, Librarian, July 12, 1967; Dorothy R. Neprash, Reference Librarian August 15, 1967; John H. Moss, Director of Environmental Studies, telephone conversation January 16, 1974; Marvin E. Kauffman, Chairman Dept, of Geology, telephone conversation January 25, 1974; Robert Young, Reference Librarian, telephone conversation January 31, 1974.

Hamilton College - David Hawley, Chairman Dept, of Geology, July 15, 1965; Juan R. Freudenthal, Reference Librarian, July 13, 1967.

Harvard University - Marland P. Billings, Professor of Geology, August 11, 1965.

Hunter College - Anastasia Van Burkalow, Chairman Dept, of Geology and Geography, August 2, 1965.

University of Illinois - George W. White, Research Professor of Geology, October 14, 1965 and August 15, 1972.

Iowa State University of Science and Technology - Keith M. Hussey, Chairman Dept, of Geology, August 15, 1965; Elizabeth A. Windsor, Head Reference Department, August 25, 1967; Stanley Yates, Special Collections, telephone conversation January 29, 1974.

University of Kentucky - La Donna Scruggs, Asst. Archivist, July 30, 1965.

Lafayette College - Charles K. Cabeen, Assoc. Professor of Geography (Ret.), August 14, 1965.

Lawrence University - William F . Read, Chairman Dept, of Geology, July 16, 1965.

Louisiana State University - Clarence 0. Durham, Chairman Dept, of Geology, August 2, 1965.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology - Robert R. Shrock, Professor of Geology, July 13, 1965; E. N. Hartley, Professor of History and Institute Archivist, July 19, 1972; Robert R. Shrock, Professor Emeritus of Geology and Senior Lecturer, August 27, 1972.

University of Minnesota - Tibor Zoltai, Chairman Dept, of Geology and Geophysics, July 15, 1965. 180

Oberlin College - Frederick Foreman, Retiring Chairman Dept, of Geology, July 13, 1965.

Ohio State University - Robert L. Bates, Professor of Geology, August 17, 1971.

Ohio University - Clark E. Williams, University Archivist, August 15, 1965.

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute - Samuel Rezneck, Emeritus Professor of History (courtesy Samuel Katz) Chairman Dept, of Geology, July 28, 1965.

Rutgers University - Harmony Coppola, Secretary to the Archivist, August 14, 1967.

Smith College - Caroline H. Kierstead, Chairman Dept, of Geology and Geography, July 15, 1965.

University of South Carolina - Bruce W. Nelson, Chairman Dept, of Geology, July 26, 1965.

Syracuse University - John J. Prucha, Chairman Dept, of Geology, July 30, 1965.

University of Virginia - Richard S. Mitchell, Chairman Dept, of Geology, August 2, 1965.

University of Washington - George E. Goodspeed, Professor of Geology Emeritus, August 11, 1965.

Waynesburg College - James B. Schroyer, Chairman Dept, of • Geology, August 15, 1965.

Wheaton College(Illinois) - Donald C. Boardman, Chairman Dept, of Geology, August 2, 1965.

Wittenberg University - Floyd R. Nave, Chairman Dept, of y Geology, September 6, 1965.

Yale University - John Rodgers, Chairman Dept, of Geology, October 15, 1965; Karl W. Waage, Chairman Dept, of Geology and Geophysics, December 5, 1973.