FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   24   25   26   27   28   29   30   31   32   33   34   35   36   37   38   39   40   41   42   43   44   45   46   47   48  
49   50   51   52   53   54   55   56   57   58   59   60   61   62   63   64   65   66   67   68   69   70   71   72   73   >>   >|  
ting their remains to the formation of coal, and have now to attempt an explanation of how it came to be formed in so regular a manner over so wide an area. Each of the British coal-fields is fairly extensive. The Yorkshire and Derbyshire coal-fields, together with the Lancashire coal-field, with which they were at one time in geological connection, give us an area of nearly 1000 square miles, and other British coal-fields show at least some hundreds of square miles. And yet, spread over them, we find a series of beds of coal which in many cases extend throughout the whole area with apparent regularity. If we take it, as there seems every reason to believe was the case, that almost all these coal-fields were not only being formed at the same time, but were in most instances in continuation with one another, this regularity of deposition of comparatively narrow beds of coal, appears all the more remarkable. The question at once suggests itself, Which of two things is probable? Are we to believe that all this vegetable matter was brought down by some mighty river and deposited in its delta, or that the coal-plants grew just where we now find the coal? Formerly it was supposed that coal was formed out of dead leaves and trees, the refuse of the vegetation of the land, which had been carried down by rivers into the sea and deposited at their mouths, in the same way that sand and mud, as we have seen, are swept down and deposited. If this were so, the extent of the deposits would require a river with an enormous embouchure, and we should be scarcely warranted in believing that such peaceful conditions would there prevail as to allow of the layers of coal to be laid down with so little disturbance and with such regularity over these wide areas. But the great objection to this theory is, that not only do the remains still retain their perfection of structure, but they are comparatively _pure,--i.e.,_ unmixed with sedimentary depositions of clay or sand. Now, rivers would not bring down the dead vegetation alone; their usual burden of sediment would also be deposited at their mouths, and thus dead plants, sand, and clay would be mixed up together in one black shaly or sandy mass, a mixture which would be useless for purposes of combustion. The only theory which explained all the recognised phenomena of the coal-measures was that the plants forming the coal actually grew where the coal was formed, and where, indeed, we now
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   24   25   26   27   28   29   30   31   32   33   34   35   36   37   38   39   40   41   42   43   44   45   46   47   48  
49   50   51   52   53   54   55   56   57   58   59   60   61   62   63   64   65   66   67   68   69   70   71   72   73   >>   >|  



Top keywords:
deposited
 

fields

 
formed
 
plants
 

regularity

 

theory

 

mouths

 

rivers

 

vegetation

 
comparatively

square

 

British

 
remains
 
extent
 
deposits
 

purposes

 
useless
 
require
 

warranted

 

believing


mixture

 

scarcely

 

enormous

 

embouchure

 

sedimentary

 
combustion
 
carried
 

depositions

 

forming

 

explained


recognised
 
phenomena
 

measures

 

peaceful

 
conditions
 
sediment
 

objection

 

structure

 

perfection

 
retain

burden

 

layers

 

prevail

 
disturbance
 

unmixed

 
question
 

hundreds

 

spread

 

apparent

 

extend