bluuebunny/crossref_metadata_2025_split huggingface dataset:
Elie Bertrand (1713-1797) Sees God's Order in Nature's Record: The 1766 Recueil De Divers Traites Sur L'Historie Naturelle
Authors: Bork Kennard 
Published: April 2015

Elie Bertrand (1713-1797) was a Swiss pastor/naturalist whose geological writings are illustrative of the growth of eighteenth-century natural history. Describing, cataloguing, and classifying formed the core of his work, but he also proposed theoretical analyses based on observations in the field. Bertrand's intellectual roots included Cartesian rationalism, British natural theology, and the Linnacan system of classification. Trained as a theologian. Bertrand viewed the physical world as a proving ground for showing God's Wise Design in nature. He was also committed to empiricism, and repeatedly called for expanding the base of geological knowledge.Several of the published products of Bertrand's attempts to understand the natural world were brought together in the 1766 Recueil de divers traités sur l'histoire naturelle. By briefly considering each of the incorporated papers, it is possible to recognize the topics which interested eighteenth-century naturalists and to develop insight into the methodologies they used. In the Recueil we see Bertrand's eclectic epistemology attempt to deal with such topics as the interior of the earth, earthquakes, fossils, and the origin and Providential use of mountains.Celebrated in his day, Bertrand was a correspondent of Voltaire, a counselor to the Polish court, and a member of numerous learned societies. He published articles in the French Encyclopédic, and his 1763 Dictionnaire universal des fossiles was among the most-read scientific books of the century. The obscurity which enveloped Elie Bertrand seems related in large part to the fact that he was an accumulator of data and a commentator about past theories, rather than an innovator of new concepts. As the natural theology that undergirded his writing became obsolete, the cogency of his arguments diminished. In the context of his time, however, Bertrand is an instructive example of how geoscience matured during what has been termed a sterile period in the development of natural history.
Lauge Koch: Pioneer Geo-Explorer of Greenland's Far North
Authors: Dawes Peter 
Published: April 2015

Lauge Koch, Danish explorer, geologist, and cartographer, became a legendary figure in his lifetime. He was also a very controversial one. For 50 years he was concerned with Greenland affairs, spending 33 summers and 6 winters in the far north, making a profound impact on Greenland geo-science. He was a pioneer in regional map-making and in the use of aircraft in photogrammetric surveys. Koch was a colourful personality of international fame, a man of boundless energy, who-strangely as it may seem-perhaps made in his home country as many enemies as he had admirers.Internationally, he is best known for his continuous work along the east coast between 1926 and 1958 as initiator and leader of expeditions that mapped the vast mountainous terrain of the East Greenland Caledonian fold belt. The results represent an outstanding co-ordinated effort of many international scientists. In contrast, Koch's earlier contribution, the topographical and geological mapping of northern Greenland from Baffin Bay to the Greenland Sea, is much more the work of one man. The results, accomplished primarily by dog-sledge and under particularly harsh conditions, are a mammoth achievement of regional map making unsurpassed in polar history, and one initiated long before the national commitment for regional mapping had taken shape.
The Canadian Geological Survey: Hinterland Between Two Metropolises
Authors: Eagan William 
Published: April 2015

Recognizing the 150th Anniversary of the foundation of the Geological Survey of Canada as an apt moment to assess and explore the historical context of the Survey, this paper examines the founding of the Survey, the role of William Logan as the first Director and the manner in which he shaped the structure and vocabulary of Canadian geology. The examination uses the concept of Metropolis and Hinterland pioneered by J. M. S. Careless to contextualize Canadian History.
Great Britain and the United States were metropolises for the Canadian hinterland. Great Britain was a model of imperial science and possessed a working consensus on doing geology that provided a framework for Logan and the Geological Survey. The United States, a less developed metropolis asserting its independence from British influence, offered a model of public geology in its Geological Surveys and a vocabulary of local nomenclature applicable to the Canadian rocks. Emulating both metropolises, Logan borrowed from each in a dynamic interaction as he worked to develop a distinctive response to Canadian social and scientific needs. Often uncomfortably aware of both metropolises and their mutual antagonisms, Logan had to carefully pursue his work in a setting of tension and opportunity, while creating a functioning Canadian Survey and a sophisticated Canadian geology.
C. F. Hartt's Contribution to Brazilian Museums of Natural History
Authors: Lopes Maria 
Published: April 2015

Charles Frederic Hartt (1840-1878), a geologist who took part in Louis Agassiz's Thayer Expedition in 1865, returned to Brazil several times during his life: a solo trip in 1867, two of his own expeditions (while he was professor of geology at Cornell University), the Morgan Expeditions of 1870 and 1871, and his final voyage, which started in 1874. Hartt is known for his opposition to Agassiz's glacial theory of the Amazon River basin, for his contributions to Brazilian geological knowledge, and for his rôle in the Geological Commission of Brazil. Lesser known are his contributions and links to Brazilian Natural History Museums, institutions which played an important and lasting role in the development of geological sciences in Barizl. In Brazil, Hartt combined enthnographical work with his geological explorations, and he continued the ethnographical work initiated by Domingos Soares Ferreira Penna, a naturalist from Rio de Janeiro Museu Nacional who later became the director of Museu Paraense. When the Museu Paraense opened in 1871, Hartt donated books and what became the museum's first geological collections: both North American samples and samples which Hartt had collected in the Amazon region, some of which were sent to the United States to be classified and then returned to Brazil.
From 1876 to 1877, Hartt was employed by the Museu Nacional as head of the 3rd Section-Physical Sciences, Mineralogy, Geology and Paleontology, a position which enhanced his research, collecting, and his conferences. Even though Hartt had a three-year contract, he resigned after one year to devote all of his energies to the Comissão Geológica do Imperio do Brasil, the geological survey of Brazil which he directed.
Despite his short official connection with the museum in Rio, Hartt's activities with Brazilian museums provide insight into the issues relating to the transfer and adaptation of institutional models from one country to another.
Commentaries on the Huttonian Theory of the Earth From Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 1805-1815
Authors: Bretsky Peter 
Published: April 2015

Articles published from 1805 to 1815 in the Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh reflect a rapidly emerging and meticulous empiricism in the study of earth history; an empiricism directed principally toward an understanding of James Hutton's notions about cyclical, igneous-based, earth processes. One obvious focus for this detailed testing was Hutton's disagreement with Werner over the origin of basalt, which was most carefully explored in the laboratory studies of Sir James Hall and Robert Kennedy. However the geological field observations of Sir George Mackenzie, Lord Webb Seymour, John Playfair and other Society members seemed also to play a most important role in deciphering the Huttonian logic.
Hall, following Lavoisier but in disagreement with Hutton, repeatedly emphasized that a more rigorous experimental micro-chemistry would eventually result in a more fundamentally sound macrogeology. In a number of papers read before the Royal Society it was obvious that Hall and his colleagues were indebted to Hutton for his demanding brand of field empiricism, which they acclaimed as a break with the less rigorous 18th century cosmologies, but Hutton was definitely not venerated. Certain Huttonian conclusions were verified but others were severely compromised not only by the results of Hall's fusion experiments but also by numerous field observations especially of Alpine geomorphic features. Indeed, attempting to understand the scale of geological processes through their subsequent effects appears at times to have been a more fundamental pursuit than a continual chorus of fire versus water.
Obscured perhaps by the studies of subsequent generations these turn-of-the-century geological controversies were so enriched by empirical fervor that even this brief perusal of the Transactions cannot fail to impress us with the high level of imaginative experimentation devised by members of the Society, experimentation, however, resulting in large part from the Huttonian legacy.
Geology and the Wheeler Survey
Authors: Guth Peter 
Published: April 2015

The Wheeler Survey was the only one of the territorial surveys of the 1860's and 1870's to concentrate on topographic mapping rather than geology. This difference in emphasis contributed to the poor relations of the Army survey with the two Interior Department surveys and with the scientific community after 1873. Geologists' complaints with the Wheeler Survey centered on: the rapid pace of fieldwork, the publication policy, the accuracy and utility of the topographic base maps, and the subordination to the Army's young lieutenants.Ten geologists and three paleontologists served in the field with Wheeler. His survey's official publications reported reconnaissance work in Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, Arizona, Nevada, and California. The survey's geologists collected many new fossils for description and stratigraphic evaluation by F.B. Meek and by C.A. White. E.D. Cope discovered the Puercan (earliest Paleocene) faunas of New Mexico, one of his most significant scientific discoveries, while with Wheeler. Mining geologist John Church based his theory of heat generation in the Comstock Lode on field work for the Wheeler survey. While serving with Wheeler, J.J. Stevenson made controversial discoveries of late Paleozoic orogeny in the Rockies and Cretaceous coal deposits. G.K. Gilbert recognized the fault block nature of the Basin Ranges, and began his study of Lake Bonneville during field work with the Wheeler survey; he established in its publications the basis for his later career.
Edward Hicks Reads the Book of Nature
Authors: Porter Charlotte 
Published: April 2015

The special concern with organized natural history which distinguished the Philadelphia community following the War of 1812 can be found in surprising places. The natural environment of the new nation thoroughly Americanized a biblical subject in the paintings of Edward Hicks (1780-1849), a devoted Quaker who lived in Bucks County, Pennsylvania. Although little is known about his artistic methods, his compositions of the "Peaceable Kingdom" are probably the most famous examples of 19th-century folk art in this country.Hicks' pictorial idiom is so idiosyncratic that it has tended to defy placement within the American developments within art history of his time. However, the geological theories of the period help to clarify some of Hicks' oddly organized compositions, particularly those which introduce the Falls of Niagara, the Natural Bridge of Virginia or the Delaware Water Gap and give a rationale to Hicks' wooden style of painting typical of American folk artists.
The Desert Sandstone of Australia A Late Nineteenth-Century Enigma of Deposition, Fossils, and Weathering
Authors: Branagan David 
Published: April 2015

The term "Desert Sandstone" was featured on geological maps and in the literature of Australian geology for more than eighty years from 1872. The name was suggested by Richard Daintree (1832-1878) (1868) for what were later described as "a promiscuous lot of sediments that form a dissected tableland in some of the drier portions of the continent" (Howchin, 1918). The name became current, particularly in Queensland, but there were many problems in mapping the unit, which was at first thought to be of Tertiary age, but then became largely accepted as Late Cretaceous.While some geologists thought the unit was of marine origin, others believed it was aeolian, even partly made of volcanic dust, but most geologists thought it was largely lacustrine. In many areas the rock appeared to be highly silicified, and opinions differed as to the source of silicification—a former covering of basalt, or siliceous hot waters from below?Complications arose when Glossopteris, regarded as a Late Palaeozoic fossil, was found in the "Desert Sandstone," and arguments arose about the possibility of this plant having persisted in Australia until the late Mesozoic.The stratigraphic/palaeontological problems were eventually sorted out by detailed mapping, which showed that there were in fact a number of sandstones of similar appearance but quite different ages. It took longer to realise that the apparent uniformity of sedimentary rocks of different ages was largely the result of weathering, which produced the silicified "duricrust" in many parts of inland Australia.The "Desert Sandstone" played an important part in the unravelling of three important lines of earth history in Australia (and there were even repercussions abroad). These were: (a) sedimentation during the Mesozoic and Cainozoic; (b) the clarification of the temporal range (and lateral extent) of the Glossopteris flora; and (c) the weathering processes that produced some of the characteristic scenery of inland Australia.
Origin of the American Qantitative Igneous Rock Classification: Part 2
Authors: Young Davis 
Published: April 2015

After the tragic premature death of George Huntington Williams in 1894, the attempt by four young American petrographers to collaborate on construction of a quantitative classification of igneous rocks fell apart. The three survivors of the original quartet, C. Whitman Cross, Joseph P. Iddings, and Louis V. Pirsson, kept up their close friendship but produced their important petrological papers, including some contributions relating to classification, independently. In time, Henry Stephens Washington befriended the three.Discussions about igneous rock classification at the VII International Geological Congress (St Petersburg, 1897); establishment of the International Committee on Rock Nomenclature; efforts to develop an international classification; and renewed discussion at the VIII International Geological Congress (Paris, 1900) re-ignited Iddings' passion to develop a cooperative American scheme. Beginning with preliminary conferences at Iddings' instigation at annual meetings of the Geological Society of America in Washington, DC (1899), and Albany, NY (1900), Cross, Iddings, Pirsson, and Washington renewed the effort to produce a new classification to be based on chemico-mineralogical principles.In the first three months of 1901, Iddings and Washington offered proposals on the number and identity of major factors, namely chemically-based mineral groups, on which to base initial subdivision into major rock groups. They also generated ideas for diagrams on which to represent major rock groups in terms of the major factors, and they took tentative steps toward a new rock nomenclature. Remaining somewhat in the background, Cross and Pirsson cheered on their friends and offered an occasional response to the proposals.
Origin of the American Quantitative Igneous Rock Classification: Part 4
Authors: Young Davis 
Published: April 2015

After several failed attempts to construct a new chemico-mineralogical igneous rock classification on the basis of three or more factors, C. Whitman Cross, Joseph P. Iddings, Louis V. Pirsson, and Henry S. Washington decided to establish a practical and logically consistent scheme on the basis of only two factors, namely, two primary groups consisting of hypothetical minerals with ideal chemical compositions, the amounts of which were to be calculated from the chemical compositions of igneous rocks. One primary group consisted mainly of alkali alumina silicates and quartz (salic minerals), whereas the other consisted mainly of calcic ferromagnesian minerals (femic). A list of the amounts of these calculated standard minerals within an igneous rock was termed the norm, and the list of the proportions of actual minerals in a rock was termed its mode.In the Fall of 1901 the quartet decided to publish a preliminary paper that presented the major themes of their two-factor classification scheme. Iddings was charged with writing a draft of the scheme, and Washington was assigned the task of producing an essay on nomenclature to be published later. The team continually refined the definitions of specific subdivisions of the scheme proposed by Iddings as well as the corresponding nomenclature proposed by Washington. They also refined the norm calculation algorithm and developed methods for calculating the norm from the mode of rocks containing aluminous ferromagnesian minerals such as hornblende and biotite.After a few months of evaluating and revising a succession of drafts, the team eventually determined to publish their work of classification and nomenclature all at once by combining the refined drafts into one large comprehensive manuscript in three parts: Part I on classification, Part II on nomenclature, and Part III on methods of calculation. Iddings coordinated and edited the various criticisms and drafts contributed by team members into one large manuscript and shepherded the project to final publication in late October 1902 in Journal of Geology. The massive 139-page article entitled ‘A quantitative chemico-mineralogical classification and nomenclature of igneous rocks’ was preceded in earlier issues of the same journal by a two-part series authored by Cross on the historical development of systematic petrography. In early 1903, both of Cross's papers and the CIPW article were combined and published as a book, Quantitative Classification of Igneous Rocks.
Matching Mind and Method with Material: John Imbrie and Quantitative Facies Analysis
Authors: Laporte Léo 
Published: April 2015

John Imbrie (b. 1925) always had deep mathematical insight and facility. At Yale University he completed his PhD (1951) under Carl Dunbar working on Middle Devonian brachiopods where he employed a statistical technique—'reduced major axis regression'—to differentiate several subspecies. Later, in a study with Edwin Colbert at the American Museum of Natural History, he used the same technique to determine subtle, yet significant, variations in the growth patterns of Triassic Metoposaurid amphibians (1956). At about the same time as sedimentary facies analysis was becoming of increased interest, Imbrie sought to test what one might do with quantitative facies analysis by undertaking a decade-long study of the Lower Permian Florena Shale (Kansas) using multivariate cluster analysis to characterize different litho- and biofacies. Despite much hard work in the field and with a highdecibel desk calculator, the hoped for results were lackluster.
But neither the man nor the methods were wanting. The materials—fragmented, scattered invertebrate fossils imbedded in shales and limestones—permitted no more understanding than qualitative, eye-ball analysis. Even a late stage attack with the IBM computer at Columbia University merely groaned and brought forth similar mousey results.
What was needed was a problem whose material components (abundant planktonic microfossils) within well-characterized stratigraphic sequences (deep-sea Pleistocene cores) were suitably matched to the man's mind and his quantitative procedures. And, of course, the result was phenomenal: his empirical demonstration of the deep-sea data for the validity of Milankovitch Cycles as the forcing factors for large-scale global climate change. His scientific success was duly honored by awards, prizes, medals, and elections to distinguished honorary societies.
How did this happen?
The Life and Geological Writings of the 'Father of Russian Science': Mikhail Lomonosov
Authors: Rowland Stephen 
Published: April 2015

Eighteenth-century Russian polymath Mikhail Lomonosov (1711-1765) is a highly celebrated and symbolically important figure in Russian culture, but he is not well known outside of Russia. In this paper I review his biography, his contributions to geology, and the key influences on his geological writings. He spent his youth on the coast of the White Sea, near the Arctic Circle, working with his father, who was a fisherman and merchant. This experience helped him to become a keen observer of natural phenomena. At age nineteen he traveled to Moscow, falsely claimed that he was the son of a nobleman, and talked his way into the Slavo-Graeco-Latin Academy. He excelled as a student and was chosen to continue his studies at the university in St Petersburg. From there he was one of three Russian students chosen to spend several years studying in Germany, primarily to learn about mining and the extraction of metals from ore. Lomonosov's four-and-a-half years in Germany were critical to his development as a scholar and scientist, immersing him in contemporary European knowledge and epistemology.
After Lomonosov returned to the St Petersburg Academy of Sciences and Arts in 1741, he worked his way up the academic ladder, eventually becoming professor of chemistry, but it was not a smooth and steady climb. At one point he was under house arrest for eight months for rowdy conduct and discourteous behavior. Lomonosov made significant contributions to many fields of science. He wrote several geological publications, the most significant of which is On the Strata of the Earth (1763), which became available in German only in 1961, and in English only in 2012. Lomonosov's work in geology was motivated by his desire to promote economic development in Russia through the extraction of mineral resources, together with a deep curiosity about natural history.
John Leonard Riddell: From Rensselaer to New Orleans (1827-1865)
Authors: Skinner Hubert , Riess Karlem 
Published: April 2015

John L. Riddell, though primarily interested in chemistry, botany, and medicine, made considerable contributions to geology. From 1827-1829 he was a student at Rensselaer under Amos Eaton, the first American teacher of geology. Riddell's first scientific lecture, A new theory of the earth, was delivered at Rensselaer in August 1829. It dealt with geological formations and the fossil remains contained therein.
From 1830-1832 Riddell presented public subscription lectures in New York, Ontario, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. Late in 1832 he became professor of chemistry and botany at the Ohio Reformed Medical College, where he began to study the geology of the state. Geology of Ohio, his first formal paper on geological subjects, appeared in 1833. Others papers soon followed. He worked with Samuel P. Hildreth on Survey of the geology of Ohio, which was completed in 1836. Soon afterwards, Riddell married and moved to New Orleans, becoming professor of chemistry at the New Orleans Medical College, now Tulane University. He remained in New Orleans until his death nearly thirty years later.
In 1839 Riddell attempted to secure state authorization to conduct a geological survey of Louisiana. Also in 1839, he made two excursions to Texas, resulting in his Geology of the Trinity Country, Texas, published in 1839. Finally, in 1841, the Geological Committee of the State of Louisiana was formed, with Riddell as Chairman. There were five other members. Tragically, the result of their work was lost before being published, and no trace of the manuscript is known to exist today. In his later years, Riddell continued to do geological work, including studies of Mississippi River dynamics. He also continued his long teaching career in New Orleans.