e you that the idea of any one translating my books better than you never even momentarily crossed my mind. I am glad that you can give a fairly good account of your health, or at least that it is not worse.
LETTER 497. TO T. MELLARD READE. London, December 9th, 1880.
I am sorry to say that I do not return home till the middle of next week, and as I order no pamphlets to be forwarded to me by post, I cannot return the "Geolog. Mag." until my return home, nor could my servants pick it out of the multitude which come by the post. (497/1. Article on "Oceanic Islands," by T. Mellard Reade, "Geol. Mag." Volume VIII., page 75, 1881.)
As I remarked in a letter to a friend, with whom I was discussing Wallace's last book (497/2. Wallace's "Island Life," 1880.), the subject to which you refer seems to me a most perplexing one. The fact which I pointed out many years ago, that all oceanic islands are volcanic (except St. Paul's, and now this is viewed by some as the nucleus of an ancient volcano), seems to me a strong argument that no continent ever occupied the great oceans. (497/3. "During my investigations on coral reefs I had occasion to consult the works of many voyagers, and I was invariably struck with the fact that, with rare exceptions, the innumerable islands scattered through the Pacific, Indian, and Atlantic Oceans were composed either of volcanic or of modern coral rocks" ("Geological Observations on Volcanic Islands, etc." Edition II., 1876, page 140).) Then there comes the statement from the "Challenger" that all sediment is deposited within one or two hundred miles from the shores, though I should have thought this rather doubtful with respect to great rivers like the Amazons.
The chalk formerly seemed to me the best case of an ocean having extended where a continent now stands; but it seems that some good judges deny that the chalk is an oceanic deposit. On the whole, I lean to the side that the continents have since Cambrian times occupied approximately their present positions. But, as I have said, the question seems a difficult one, and the more it is discussed the better.
LETTER 498. TO A. AGASSIZ. Down, January 1st, 1881.
I must write a line or two to thank you much for having written to me so long a letter on coral reefs at a time when you must have been so busy. Is it not difficult to avoid believing that the wonderful elevation in the West Indies must have been accompanied by much subsidence, notwithstanding the state of Florida? (498/1. The Florida reefs cannot be explained by subsidence. Alexander Agassiz, who has described these reefs in detail ("Three Cruises of the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Steamer 'Blake,'" 2 volumes, London, 1888), shows that the southern extremity of the peninsula "is of comparatively recent growth, consisting of concentric barrier-reefs, which have been gradually converted into land by the accumulation of intervening mud-flats" (see also Appendix II., page 287, to Darwin's "Coral Reefs," by T.G. Bonney, Edition III., 1889.)) When reflecting in old days on the configuration of our continents, the position of mountain chains, and especially on the long-continued supply of sediment over the same areas, I used to think (as probably have many other persons) that areas of elevation and subsidence must as a general rule be separated by a single great line of fissure, or rather of several closely adjoining lines of fissure. I mention this because, when looking within more recent times at charts with the depths of the sea marked by different tints, there seems to be some connection between the profound depths of the ocean and the trends of the nearest, though distant, continents; and I have often wished that some one like yourself, to whom the subject was familiar, would speculate on it.
P.S.--I do hope that you will re-urge your views about the reappearance of old characters (498/2. See "Life and Letters," III., pages 245, 246.), for, as far as I can judge, the most important views are often neglected unless they are urged and re-urged.