[page] 54

The Theories of the Origin of Coral Reefs and Islands.

I WAS pleased to see Prof. Bonney's article on the Duke of Argyll's strictures on scientific men ("A Conspiracy of Silence," NATURE, November 10, p. 25). It is to be hoped that the rhetoric and methods of Parliamentary debate will not become common in scientific controversy. The Duke is, however, not the first who has tried to show "that if Darwin had lived he would with his well-known candour have been the first to admit the truth of Murray's theory," &c., &c. This I submit is a species of rhetoric which is out of place in scientific discussion.

It so happens that shortly after the appearance of Mr. Murray's paper "On the Structure and Origin of Coral Reefs and Islands,'' in NATURE, August 12, 1880 (p. 351), I had occasion to write to Dr. Darwin, and in my letter the following passage occurs, which I only quote to make Darwin's answer intelligible:—

"September 21, 1880.

"I think the theory Mr. Murray sets forth—that the cones or peaks, on which he considers atolls have been formed have been levelled up by pelagic deposits, and thus brought within the limits of reef-building coral growth—a very far-fetched idea."

To which Darwin with his usual acumen replies:—

Beckenham, September 22, 1880.

"I am not a fair judge, but I agree with you exactly that Murray's view is far-fetched. It is astonishing that there should be rapid dissolution of carbonate of lime at great depths and near the surface, but not at intermediate depths where he places his mountain peaks.

"Dear Sir, yours faithfully, CH. DARWIN."

As so far there appears to have been no written expression of Darwin's views published, this quotation may be of value.

T. MELLARD READE.

Park Corner, Blundellsands, November 11.