Origin of coral reefs and islands

Clicks: 3
ID: 295230
1885
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Popular

Ranked #4,092 of 8,486 articles by views in american journal of science

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 8,486 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Dana interprets the previous work on coral reefs on Pacific islands as supporting Darwin9s (1842) theory of subsidence of coral reef islands. He states that the island of Hawaii, although growing little coral, has undergone more subsidence than the coral reef end of the chain, the volcanic activity more than keeping pace with the subsidence to yield a submarine continuation of the shield form as revealed by deep soundings fairly close to the island. These define a 4 degrees 309 slope, inferred to be that of a constructional shield. Dana emphasizes the distinctions that must be made to interpret coral deposits between porous beach deposits made by subaerial denudation, and the compact coral reef rock made underwater by living organisms. He suggests that firm evidence of subsidence could be obtained by identifying beach deposits underlying coral reef rock and suggests core drilling of atolls to find such evidence. In part 2, Dana considers the following objections to Darwin9s theory: I. Darwin9s insufficient knowledge of the facts bearing on the subject. II. Subsidence not ordinarily a fact because methods of producing barrier reefs and atolls have been brought forward that do not require its aid. III. The occurrence of cases of elevation in regions of atolls and barrier reefs inconsistent with the subsidence theory. IV. No ancient coral reefs in the geological series have the great thickness attributed by the subsidence-theory to modern reefs. V. Other methods of explanation and their supporting evidence. Under III, he cites Professor Karl Semper (1868, Zeitschrift Wissenschaft Zoologie, v. 13, p. 558), who objects to subsidence on islands that have reefs raised from 200 to 250 feet above sea level as "a cumbrous and entirely hypothetical series of upward and downward movements." Semper also argues that the strongest wind waves are too feeble to break off and lift large masses of reef, some 10 feet thick. Dana counters: "But the difficulty does not exist in fact: for earthquakes may have made the waves.," citing the proximity of the Pelew island to the tectonically and volcanically active areas to the west, including the Philippines and Krakatau. Dana concludes by evaluating all counter-claims to subsidence, finding none to irreconcilably conflict with Darwin, and much to support him.
Reference Key
openalex_W2003085401 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors J. D. Dana
Journal american journal of science
Year 1885
DOI
10.2475/ajs.s3-30.176.89
URL
https://doi.org/10.2475/ajs.s3-30.176.89
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.