Fragments of Earth Lore: Sketches & Addresses Geological and Geographical. Geikie James
he can no more divorce his attention from the results of geological inquiry than the political geographer can shut his eyes to the facts of History.
Let me, in conclusion, give one further illustration of the close inter-dependence of the two sciences of which I am speaking. One of the subjects treated of by Physical Geography is the present geographical distribution of plants and animals. The land-surface of the globe has been mapped out into so many biological regions, each of which is characterised by its special fauna and flora. The greatest changes in the flora and fauna of a continent are met with as we pass from south to north, or vice versa. Proceeding in the direction of the latitude, the changes encountered are much less striking. Now, these facts are readily explained by the physical geographer, who points out that the distribution is due chiefly to climatic conditions – a conclusion which is obvious enough. But when we go into details we find that mere latitude will not account for all the phenomena. Take, for example, the case of the Scandinavian flora of our own Continent. It is true that this flora is largely confined to northern latitudes; but isolated colonies occur in our own mountains and in the mountains of middle and southern Europe. How are these to be accounted for? The physical geographer says that the plants grow there simply because they obtain at high levels in low latitudes the favourable climatic conditions underneath which they flourish at low levels in high latitudes. He therefore concludes that the distribution of life-forms is due to varying climatic and physical conditions. But if we ask him how those curious colonies of foreigners come to be planted on our mountains, he cannot tell. To get our answer we must come to the geologist; and he will explain that they are, as it were, living fossils – monuments of former great physical and climatic changes. He will prove to us that the climate of Europe was at a recent geological period so cold that the Scandinavian flora spread south into middle Europe, where it occupied the low grounds. When the climate became milder, then the northern invaders gradually retired – the main body migrating back to the north – while some stragglers, retreating before the stronger Germanic flora, took shelter in the mountains, whither the latter could not or would not follow, and so there our Scandinavians remain, the silent witnesses of a stupendous climatic revolution. Now, all the world over, plants and animals have similar wonderful tales to tell of former geographical changes. The flora and fauna of our country, for example, prove that the British Islands formed part of the Continent at a very recent geological period; and so, from similar evidence, we know that not long ago Europe was joined on to Africa. On the other hand, the facts connected with the present distribution of life demonstrate that some areas, such as Australia, have been separated from the nearest continental land for vastly prolonged periods of time.
It would be a very easy matter to adduce many further illustrations to show how close is the connection between the studies of the physical geographer and the geologist. I do not indeed exaggerate when I say that no one can hope to become a geologist who is not well versed in Physical Geography; nor, on the other hand, can the physical geographer possibly dispense with the aid of Geology. The two subjects are as closely related and interwoven, the one with the other, as History is with Political Geography. I do not see therefore how educationists who have admitted the great importance of Physical Geography as a branch of general education, can logically exclude Geology as a subject of instruction in schools. Already, indeed, it has been introduced by many teachers, and I am confident that ere long it will be as generally taught as Physical Geography. I would not, however, present the subject to young people as a lesson to be learned from books. A good teacher should be able to dispense with these helps, or rather hindrances – for such they really are to a young beginner. His pupils ought to have previously studied the subject of Physical Geography, and if they have been well taught they ought to have already acquired no mean store of geological knowledge. They ought, in fact, to have learned a good deal about the great forces which are continually modifying the surface of the globe, and what they have now to do is to study more particularly the results which have followed from the constant operation of those forces. We shall suppose, for example, that the teacher has described how rivers erode their channels, and waves tend to cut back a coast-line, and how the products of erosion, consisting of gravel, sand, and mud, are distributed along river-valleys and accumulated in lakes and seas. He now exhibits to his class good-sized fragments of conglomerate, sandstone, and shale, and points out how each of these rocks is of essentially the same character, and must therefore have had the same origin, as modern sedimentary accumulations. His pupils should be encouraged to examine the rocks of their own neighbourhood, whether exhibited in natural sections or artificial exposures, and to compare these with the products of modern geological action. One hour’s instruction in the field is, in fact, worth twenty hours of reading or listening to lectures. Knowledge at first hand is what is wanted. There are many excellent popular or elementary treatises dealing with Historical Geology, and these have their uses, and may be read with profit as well as pleasure. But the mere reading of such books, it is needless to say, will never make us geologists. They help no doubt to store the mind with interesting and entertaining knowledge, but they do not cultivate the faculties of observation and reasoning. And unless geology is so taught as to accomplish this result, I do not see why it should enter into any school curriculum. Further, I would remark that, however interesting a geological treatise may be, it cannot possibly stimulate the imagination as the practical study of the science is bound to do. One may put into the hands of a youth a clear and well-written description of some particular fossiliferous limestone, and he may by dint of slavish toil be able to repeat verbatim all that he has read. That is how a good deal of book-knowledge of science is acquired. Only think, however, of the drudgery it involves – the absolute waste of time and energy. But let us illustrate our lesson by means of a lump of the limestone itself; let us show him the character of the rock and the nature of its fossil contents, and his difficulties disappear. Better still – let us take him, if we can, into a limestone quarry, and he will be a dull boy indeed if he fails fully to understand what limestone is, or to realise the fact that the rock he is looking at accumulated slowly, like existing oceanic formations, at the bottom of a sea that teemed with animal life. It is unnecessary, however, that I should illustrate this subject further. I would only repeat that the beginner should be taught from the very first to use his own eyes, and to draw logical conclusions from the facts which he observes. Trained after this manner, he would acquire, not only a precise and definite knowledge of what geological data really are, but he would learn also how to interpret those data. He would become familiar, in fact, with the guiding principles of geological inquiry.
How much or how little of Historical Geology should be given in schools will depend upon circumstances. Great care, however, should be taken to avoid wearying the youthful student with strings of mere names. What good is gained by learning to repeat the names of fifty or a hundred fossils, if you cannot recognise any one of these when it is put into your hand? With young beginners I should not attempt anything of that kind. If the neighbourhood chanced to be rich in fossils, I should take my pupils out on Saturday to the sections where they were found, and let them ply their hammers and collect specimens for themselves. I should describe no fossils which they had not seen and handled. Of the more remarkable forms of extinct animals and plants, which are often represented by only fragmentary remains, I should exhibit drawings showing the creatures as they have been restored by the labours of comparative anatomists. Such restorations and ideal views of geological scenes like those given by Heer, Dana, Saporta, and others, convey far more vivid impressions of the life of a geological period than the most elaborate description. In fine, the story of our earth should be told much in the same manner as Scott wrote the history of Scotland for his grandson. There is no more reason for requiring the juvenile student to drudge through minute geological data before introducing him to the grand results of geological investigation, than there is for compelling him to study the manuscripts in our Record Offices before allowing him to read the history which has been drawn from these and similar sources of information. It is enough if at the beginning of his studies he has already learned the general nature of geological evidence and the method of its interpretation. Provided with such a stock of geological knowledge as I have indicated, our youth would leave school with some intelligent appreciation of existing physical conditions, and a not inadequate conception of world-history.
II.
The Physical Features of Scotland. 2
Scotland,