No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
IV.—Note on the Airolo-Schists Controversy
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 May 2009
Extract
From one cause and another efficient education in modern languages has been exceptional in this country until quite recent years; and so it is no reproach to the geologist for him to have to confess that he “can't read German.” He must therefore get some friend to translate for him, or wait until translations of many important papers and books are published; and in many cases this never happens. So it is thought that towards the present controversy, which has been raised about the schists, etc., of the Val Bedretto and the adjoining districts, the mental attitude of many geological students may be pretty much that of the Bavarian veteran. It is with the hope of throwing a little light on the subject that the present writer has put pen to paper. For it is not too much to say that the subject is one of critical importance.
- Type
- Original Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1890
References
page 252 note 1 Nature, 1878.
page 252 note 2 GEOL. MAG. Dec. II. Vol. I. 1874, p. 555Google Scholar.
page 253 note 1 “It was the English,” Easpar cried,
“Who put the French to rout;
But what they fought each other for,
I could not well make out.”
page 253 note 2 Untersuchungen üer den Mechanismus der Gebirgsbildung.
page 253 note 3 Die EnUtehung der Alpen, a work of great value and interest.
page 253 note 4 Chemical and Physical Studies in the Metamorphism of Rocks (London, 1889)Google Scholar.
page 253 note 5 See Eludes sur Its Schistes Crystalline, published by the International Geological Congress (London, 1888)Google Scholar.
page 253 note 6 See Nature, vol. XXXViii. Sept. 27, 1888.
page 253 note 7 Decade III. Vol. VII. (January, 1890), p. 36. Prof, de Lapparent's, L'Écoree Terreslre (Brussels, 1888)Google Scholar is worthy of consideration.
page 254 note 1 Op. cit. Bd. ii. p. 40. See also Chem. and Physical Studies, pp. 89, 124.
page 254 note 2 Q.J.G.S. February, 1889, p. 109.
page 254 note 3 Op. cit. Bd. i. pp. 41–52.
page 254 note 4 From a conversation which the present writer had with Dr. Heim over his sections in September, 1888, it has seemed all the way through this controversy that the real difference between Heim and Bonney has been much exaggerated.
page 254 note 5 Op. cit. Bd. i. p. 43.
page 254 note 6 Q.J.G.S. loe. cit.
page 254 note 7 See (e.g.)‘A supposed case of metamorphism of an Alpine rock of Carboniferous age,’ Geol. Mag. Decade II . Vol. X. pp. 507–511.
page 254 note 8 Etudes sur Us Schisles Grystallins, p. 93.
page 255 note 1 Op. cit. pp. 94, 95.
page 255 note 2 At a previous meeting of the Society the present writer entered his protest against this assumption (Q.J.G.S., August, 1889, p. 503).
page 255 note 3 See “Abstract of Proceedings of the Geological Society,” No. 549.
page 255 note 4 That paper having been now (May 19) published, this is found to be so.
page 255 note 5 “Ueber die Gesteine der sedutientären Mulde von ylirolo,” by Dr. Grubenmann, Ulrich (Frauenfeld, J. Huber, 1888).Google Scholar I have to thank Dr. Heim for drawing my attention to this, and Dr. Grubenmann for his prompt courtesy in sending me a copy; and I offer beforehand most ample apologies to the latter, if anything in this paper may appear to him at all discourteous (etwas unhöflich)
page 256 note 1 ‘Calcitglimmerschiefer’ of Kalkowsky, El. der Lith. p. 199
page 257 note 1 Ibid. p. 3.
page 257 note 2 See published sections of the Gotthard Tunnel by Dr. Stapff; Prestwich, Geology, vol. i. p. 304, section i.
page 257 note 3 See Grubenmann, Ibid. p. 17.
page 258 note 1 Ibid. p. 19.
page 258 note 2 Ibid. pp. 24, 25.
page 258 note 3 Chemical and Physical Studies, etc., pp. 7–13.
page 258 note 4 Grubenmann, Ibid. p. 25.
page 258 note 5 Ibid. p. 25.
page 258 note 6 Ibid. p. 26.
page 258 note 7 Ibid. p. 26.
page 259 note 1 See Chemical and Physical Studies, etc., Appendix II. note T.
page 259 note 2 Vide Etudes sur les Schists Crystallins, pp. 66–88.
page 260 note 1 See “Bulletin of the Geol. Soc. of Am.” vol. i. pp. 175–194.
page 260 note 2 An inclusive term now proposed for the Upper Archæan [= Coutchiking and Keewatin series.]
page 260 note 3 Lawson estimates the Upper Archæan as easily 9 miles in thickness; but they are small in extent compared with the gneiss series.