Would a comparison of the ashes of terrestrial peat and coal give any clue? (554/3. In an article by M. F. Rigaud on "La Formation de la Houille," published in the "Revue Scientifique," Volume II., page 385, 1894, the author lays stress on the absence of certain elements in the ash of coals, which ought to be present, on the assumption that the carbon has been derived from plant tissues. If coal consists of altered vegetable debris, we ought to find a certain amount of alkalies and phosphoric acid in its ash. Had such substances ever been present, it is difficult to understand how they could all have been removed by the solvent action of water. (Rigaud's views are given at greater length in an article on the "Structure and Formation of Coal," "Science Progress," Volume II., pages 355 and 431, 1895.)) Peat ashes are good manure, and coal ashes, except mechanically, I believe are of little use. Does this indicate that the soluble salts have been washed out? i.e., if they are NOT present. I go up to Geological Council to-day--so farewell.
(554/4. In a letter to Sir Joseph Hooker, October 6th, 1847, Mr. Darwin, in referring to the origin of Coal, wrote: "...I sometimes think it could not have been formed at all. Old Sir Anthony Carlisle once said to me gravely that he supposed Megatherium and such cattle were just sent down from heaven to see whether the earth would support them, and I suppose the coal was rained down to puzzle mortals. You must work the coal well in India.")
LETTER 555. TO J.D. HOOKER. Down, May 22nd, 1860.
Lyell tells me that Binney has published in Proceedings of Manchester Society a paper trying to show that Coal plants must have grown in very marine marshes. (555/1. "On the Origin of Coal," by E.W. Binney, "Mem. Lit. Phil. Soc. Manchester," Volume VIII., 1848, page 148. Binney examines the evidence on which dry land has been inferred to exist during the formation of the Coal Measures, and comes to the conclusion that the land was covered by water, confirming Brongniart's opinion that Sigillaria was an aquatic plant. He believes the Sigillaria "grew in water, on the deposits where it is now discovered, and that it is the plant which in a great measure contributed to the formation of our valuable beds of coal." (Loc. cit., page 193.)) Do you remember how savage you were long years ago at my broaching such a conjecture?
LETTER 556. TO L. HORNER. Down [1846?].
I am truly pleased at your approval of my book (556/1. "Geological Observations on South America," London, 1846.): it was very kind of you taking the trouble to tell me so. I long hesitated whether I would publish it or not, and now that I have done so at a good cost of trouble, it is indeed highly satisfactory to think that my labour has not been quite thrown away.
I entirely acquiesce in your criticism on my calling the Pampean formation "recent" (556/2. "We must, therefore, conclude that the Pampean formation belongs, in the ordinary geological sense of the word, to the Recent Period." ("Geol. Obs." page 101).); Pleistocene would have been far better. I object, however, altogether on principle (whether I have always followed my principle is another question) to designate any epoch after man. It breaks through all principles of classification to take one mammifer as an epoch. And this is presupposing we know something of the introduction of man: how few years ago all beds earlier than the Pleistocene were characterised as being before the monkey epoch. It appears to me that it may often be convenient to speak of an Historical or Human deposit in the same way as we speak of an Elephant bed, but that to apply it to an epoch is unsound.
I have expressed myself very ill, and I am not very sure that my notions are very clear on this subject, except that I know that I have often been made wroth (even by Lyell) at the confidence with which people speak of the introduction of man, as if they had seen him walk on the stage, and as if, in a geological chronological sense, it was more important than the entry of any other mammifer.