Appletons' Popular Science Monthly, February 1900: Vol. 56, November, 1899 to April, 1900 — John Shaqi
Appletons' Popular Science Monthly, February 1900: Vol. 56, November, 1899 to April, 1900Various
Science
Appletons' Popular Science Monthly, February 1900: Vol. 56, November, 1899 to April, 1900
Various
Science -- Periodicals; Technology -- Periodicals
_Mountain Ranges._--If oceanic basins and continental domes constitute
the greatest features of the earth’s face, and are determined by the
most fundamental movements of the crust, surely next in importance
come great mountain ranges. These are the glory of our earth, the
culminating points of scenic beauty and grandeur. But they are so only
because they are also the culminating points, the theaters of greatest
activity, of all geological forces, both igneous and aqueous--igneous
in their formation, and aqueous both in the preparatory sedimentation
and in the final erosive sculpturing into forms of beauty. A theory
of mountain ranges therefore lies at the bases of all theoretical
geology. To the pre-geologic mind mountains are the type of permanence
and stability. We still speak metaphorically of the _everlasting_
hills. But the first lesson taught by geology is that nothing is
permanent; everything is subject to continuous change by a process of
evolution. Mountains are no exception. We know them in embryo in the
womb of the ocean. We know the date of their birth; we trace their
growth, their maturity, their decay, their death; we even find in the
folded structure of the rock, as it were, the fossil bones of extinct
mountains. In a word, we are able now to trace the whole life history
of mountains.
Mountains, therefore, have always been a subject of deepest interest
both to the popular and the scientific mind--an interest intensified
by the splendors of mountain scenery and the perils of mountain
exploration. The study of mountains is therefore coeval with the study
of geology. As early as the beginning of the present century Constant
Prevost observed that most characteristic structure of mountains--viz.,
their folded strata--and inferred their formation by lateral pressure.
All subsequent writers have assumed lateral pressure as somehow
concerned in the formation of mountains. But that the whole height
of mountains is due wholly to this cause was not generally admitted
or even imagined until recently. It was universally supposed that
mountains were lifted by volcanic forces from beneath, that the lifted
strata broke along the top of the arch, and melted matter was forced
through between the parted strata, pushing them back and folding them
on each side. And hence the typical form of mountain ranges is that
of a granite axis along the crest and folded strata on each flank.
But attention has lately been drawn to the fact that some mountains,
as, for example, the Appalachian, the Uintah, etc., consist of folded
strata alone, without any granite axis. In such ranges it is plain that
the whole height is due not to any force acting from below, but to a
lateral pressure crushing and folding the strata, and a corresponding
thickening and bulging of the same along the line of crushing. Then the
idea was applied to _all_ mountain ranges. So soon as the prodigious
amount of erosion suffered by mountains, greater often than all that is
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account