The geology of Charles Darwin

Fig. 1. Title page of the first volume of Lyell’s (1830-1833) Principles of Geology.

Like the writer, Johann Goethe, who inscribed himself in the guest book of Karlsbad – present day Karlovy Vary, in the Czech Republic – as “J.W. Goethe, Geognost”, Charles Darwin considered himself a geologist (“I, a geologist” citation from his notebooks in Herbert 2005, p. 2), and rightfully so. He was a true savant and an amateur in the positive sense of the word, as commonly used in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries (see Rudwick 2004, p. 23), This is despite the fact that he belonged, for some time after his return with HMS Beagle, to the geological elite (Rudwick 1982). This may be deduced, for example, from the fact that he was asked to write the part on geology of a naval manual (Darwin 1849).

Darwin ... devoted 1383 pages of Beagle notes to geological topics, compared with only 368 pages to biological topics.” - (Rhodes 1991, pp. 194-195)

Early geological influences: Edinburgh, Cambridge and Lyell’s Principles

Henslow then persuaded me to begin the study of geology [in 1831] ¼ [T]he sagacious Henslow ¼ advised me to get and study the first volume of the Principles, which had just then been published, but on no account to accept the views therein advocated.” - (Darwin 1983, pp. 39, 59)

Darwin’s geological education took a new direction as he read volume one of Lyell’s Principles of Geology (Fig. 1) on-board HMS Beagle. However, his instruction in the new science actually began when he attended formal courses in natural history and chemistry, and made friendships with geologists as a student at the universities of Edinburgh and Cambridge. Darwin was in Edinburgh from 1825 to 1827, where he had been sent by his father, Robert Waring Darwin (1766-1848), a physician, to study medicine, which was a kind of family tradition. In this, Darwin was unsuccessful, but while there, he was introduced to geology by taking Robert Jameson’s course of lectures in his final academic year (1826-1827) (Secord 1991, p. 134). Jameson (1774-1854; Fig. 2) was Regius Professor of Natural History from 1804 until his death. He had studied in Freiburg under Abraham Gottlob Werner (1749-1817) and held Wernerian views, at least at the time when he was teaching Darwin. The Wernerian theory of the history of the Earth considered all rocks to have been deposited or precipitated from a universal ocean. Darwin found Jameson’s lectures “¼ incredibly dull. The sole effect they produced on me was the determination never as long as I lived to read a book on geology ¼” (Darwin 1983, p. 28) – hardly the reaction expected from a man who would be awarded the Wollaston Medal, the highest accolade of the Geological Society of London, in 1859. However, Darwin was a hard working student in Jameson’s classes and developed a firm grasp of many aspects of geological knowledge at that time (Secord 1991, pp. 135, 138).

Darwin must also have received part of his geological education during the chemistry course (1825-1826) of Thomas Charles Hope (1766-1844) (Secord 1991, p. 139), a renowned lecturer, known for the discovery of the element strontium and the elucidation of why icebergs float. Mineralogy and geology would have formed part of Hope’s chemistry course, and his views were Huttonian, not Wernerian. Huttonian theory, recognizing the rock cycle and uniformitarianism, forms the basis of any modern geological synthesis. As noted by one of his students, “¼ Dr Hope thinks that the Huttonian better accounts for the appearance of nature than the Wernerian theory” (quoted by Secord 1991, p. 139). Hope and Jameson were in dispute over the rival theories in the University and Darwin’s later Lyellian geological education was undoubtedly influenced by Hope’s ideas and his superior lecturing technique (Secord 1991, pp. 141-142).

Darwin’s distaste for a medical career (Darwin 1983, p. 31) led to a move to the University of Cambridge to study for the Church. He graduated, BA in 1831, but continued to pursue his interests in natural history, which led to him becoming naturalist on board HMS Beagle. His geological interests were fired by close association with, again, two notable savants, the Rev John Stevens Henslow, Regius Professor of Botany, and the Rev Adam Sedgwick, Woodwardian Professor of Geology.

Henslow (1796-1861; Fig. 3) was a polymath, with expertise in “botany, entomology, chemistry, mineralogy and geology” (Darwin 1983, p. 36). Darwin’s older brother, Erasmus, thought that the Professor was a man who knew every branch of science (Darwin in Jenyns 1862, p. 51). For example, Henslow had formerly been Professor of Mineralogy at Cambridge (Secord 1991, p. 142). He was Darwin’s mentor, introduced the young man to geology, persuaded Sedgwick to take him into the field and, most importantly, nominated his young protégé for the post of (unpaid) naturalist aboard HMS Beagle. Darwin was third choice after Henslow himself and Leonard Jenyns, Henslow’s brother-in-law. It is not too much to suggest that, without Henslow, there would have been no Origin of Species (1859). His own geological publications included accounts of the Isle of Man and Isle of Anglesey, and the discovery of phosphate deposits in East Anglia.

Sedgwick (1785-1873; Fig. 4) was one of the preeminent British geologists of the first half of the nineteenth century, with a research programme founded in fieldwork on what would now be called the Lower Palaeozoic and the Devonian successions of England and Wales. His joint researches with Roderick Impey Murchison (1792-1871) included the definition of the Cambrian and Devonian Systems. Darwin probably met Sedgwick at a party at Henslow’s house, a popular meeting place for naturalists in Cambridge, and may have attended some of Sedgwick’s lectures (Secord 1991, p. 143). However, Sedgwick’s greatest influence on Darwin was undoubtedly in the field.

After rubbing shoulders with these and other savants at two of the leading universities in the British Isles, it is perhaps curious that Darwin’s scientific development is traced so strongly to another young natural historian who he was destined not to meet until after returning to Britain after five years on HMS Beagle. Charles Lyell (1797-1875) was author of the most influential series of three volumes in the history of the Earth sciences, his Principles of Geology (Lyell 1830-1833). The first volume formed part of the library of HMS Beagle when it sailed for South America in December 1831. Henslow was apparently not the only geologist to be sceptical of Lyell’s gradualistic position when the Principles was published (Secord 1991, p. 151), but Darwin found it the most valuable book on geology available on-board (Herbert 2005, p. 64).

The book was radical, rejecting any Biblical literalism such as a universal deluge, going beyond Hutton’s uniformitarian ideas and incorporating a wealth of field evidence for the explanation of geological features in terms of phenomena that are observable at the present day. The copy of volume one of the Principles (Fig. 1) on HMS Beagle improved Darwin’s eye, already trained by Sedgwick, so that the young naturalist could test the Lyellian method in the field at the first chance, namely on St Jago in the Cape Verde islands (Secord 1991, p. 151 and below). Darwin accepted that small changes can accumulate to have major effects as the basis of his subsequent research programme, while rejecting Lyell’s more speculative ideas such as time’s cyclicity.

Darwin in the field

Tell Professor Sedgwick he does not know how much I am indebted to him for the Welsh Expedition; it has given me an interest in Geology which I would not give up for any consideration. I do not think I ever spent a more delightful three weeks than pounding the North-west Mountains.” - (Quotation from a letter of Darwin to Henslow in Barrett 1974, p.155)

Fieldwork is the core process whereby geological data are gathered and Darwin had two masters of fieldwork to instruct him – Sedgwick in person and Lyell through the pages of the Principles. However, his early field experiences were less than auspicious – Jameson’s field excursion to Salisbury Crags did not impress the student Darwin (1983, p. 29). In the summer of 1831, Darwin, now a Cambridge graduate, took himself off into the field in the area to the west and northwest of his parental home in Shrewsbury, but lack of experience engendered indifferent results (Roberts 1996, 2001). His real initiation into field geology only came when he made a tour into North Wales as assistant to Adam Sedgwick, an association arranged by Henslow.

Sedgwick was one of the most complete field geologists of his day, in a discipline that included Lyell, De la Beche and Murchison, to name but three worthy of similar accolade. There is some uncertainty as to exactly where Darwin travelled with Sedgwick (Barrett 1974; Roberts 2001). Certainly, they rode northwest and then west from Shrewsbury, into North Wales, and on to Bangor and the Menai Straits. The traditional interpretation is that they separated here, Sedgwick to investigate the complex geology of Anglesey while Darwin travelled south to visit friends in Barmouth. However, as noted by Roberts (2001, p. 35), on the voyage of HMS Beagle, Darwin had a firsthand knowledge of the geology of Anglesey. It is at least likely that this was gained in Sedgwick’s company.

Darwin’s fieldwork in North Wales seems to have been the making of him as a geologist. Sedgwick taught him both basic techniques and terminology, such as the correct use of the compass and clinometer for determining ‘strike’ and ‘dip’ (Herbert 2005, Fig. 1.4). He also demonstrated his thinking on cleavage as being a structural expression unrelated to bedding, which was the most advanced idea on this subject at the time and is now recognised as being correct. And Sedgwick actually got Darwin involved in his research programme on the geology of North Wales (Fig. 5), such as looking for ‘phantom’ outcrops of the Old Red Sandstone. This unit was marked on Greenough’s (1820) geological map of England and Wales, but Sedgwick and Darwin showed that there was no evidence of its presence in the field. This they did both in tandem and, sometimes, separately to cover more ground. In less than a month, Darwin’s expertise in field geology had progressed demonstrably such that Sedgwick could entrust him with such independent enquiries.

Given his excellent grounding in field geology, the five years that Darwin spent abroad gave him the chance to greatly expand his first-hand knowledge of geology, but in terranes somewhat different from those of North Wales. The story is told of how volume one of Lyell’s Principles was a great influence on Darwin during this period, but the library of specialist volumes on geology available to Darwin was larger than just this one book. Of those listed by Secord (1991, p. 150), it is perhaps not stretching things too far to suggest that A Geological Manual, by such a consummate field geologist as De la Beche (1831), may have been of at least as much practical value, even though Darwin did subsequently not acknowledge it as such.

Darwin’s first independent chance to apply his received wisdom from Sedgwick, Lyell and others was on Quail Island (Ilheu de Santa Maria), in the harbour of Porto Praya, St Jago (São Tiago) in the Cape Verde Islands (Herbert 1991, pp. 164-174; 2005 pp. 143-156). Darwin’s investigations (1839b) were exemplary for a relatively inexperienced field geologist, including, as they did, observations on rock types, stratigraphy (bedding) and structure (dip and strike, faults and uplift). Eventually, it lead to a general overview of southern South America (Fig. 6).

However, Darwin’s geological research was not always successful as an application of Lyellian principles to his own observations. In 1838, Darwin examined a phenomenon known as the parallel roads of Glen Roy in the Scottish Highlands, south of the Great Glen. Darwin described these features, preserved high up on the sides of the glen, and determined that they were a series of ancient marine strandlines from multiple lines of evidence (Darwin 1839a). Darwin disagreed with earlier theories that suggested that these features marked former lake levels within Glen Roy and suggested that the parallel roads provided evidence of changes in the relative elevations of the Scottish mainland relative to sea level, which supported his ideas on vertical tectonic actions. However, Agassiz read a paper to the Geological Society in November 1840 that showed the parallel roads represent successive shorelines of a freshwater, glacial lake that had been dammed by ice. Darwin had a strong reaction to Agassiz’s analysis and, after more than 20 years (Rudwick 2008, p. 537, footnote 3), repudiated his own publication: “This paper was a great failure, and I am ashamed of it” (Darwin 1983, p. 48). However, it brought the action of former glaciers sharply to Darwin’s attention and, in 1842, he examined glacial features in North Wales for himself (Darwin 1983, p. 58).

Darwin and vertical movements of the crust

“Even when writing on coral reefs Darwin approaches the subject as a geologist.” -  (Brouwer 1976, p. 213)

The theory of plate tectonics dominates modern ideas concerning the evolution of the Earth’s crust. Stated simply, the internal heat of the Earth laterally propels large and rigid portions of the crust, called plates. These move apart, slide past each other and collide in a variety of settings and geometries that have determined the principal physiographic features of the planet. Many of these features are elevated (hills and mountains) or depressed (basins and oceanic trenches). Nonetheless, they are the products of lateral plate movement, which may be translated into vertical motion, most commonly close to inter-plate boundaries. However, the explanation of vertical motion, driven by indeterminate vertical processes, dominated tectonic theory before the early 1960s (Oreskes 1999). Darwin’s ideas on tectonics belonged to this prevailing school, recognising the importance of vertical, not horizontal forces. His attempt to produce an explanatory theory foundered for not having a measurable process to drive the observed pattern (Rhodes 1991).

Darwin’s ideas on tectonic processes were mainly derived from his observations of the South American continent. This included, in particular, the Andes, but also the Chilean earthquake, which he had himself witnessed (see Rudwick 2008, p. 487), and oceanic islands visited during the voyage of HMS Beagle (Darwin 1838a, b). He presented his tectonic theory of continental crustal uplift to the Geological Society in London on 7 March 1838 (Darwin 1838c, 1840; Rhodes 1991). His theory of mountain building was not the first such theory, any more than his theory of the origin of species by natural selection was the first theory of evolution. Essentially, Darwin considered the processes of formation of mountain chains and volcanoes to be closely related. Their formation was Lyellian – slow increments over a great length of time producing major elevations of the crust. Rhodes (1991, p. 206) summarised the theory as follows:

  1. The elevation of mountain chains was cumulative rather than catastrophic.
  2. The process of mountain building continues today.
  3. This force “has been in action with the same average intensity (volcanic eruptions being the index) since the remotest periods” (Darwin 1840, p. 625).
  4. Parallel mountain ranges may be of demonstrably different ages.

However, Darwin’s theory caused little interest when published in a climate of conflict between Catastrophists and Gradualists (Rhodes 1991, p. 215 et seq.). It was an attempt at a Gradualist global synthesis of crustal evolution, something that would not be attained until the plate tectonic synthesis over a century later (Oreskes 1999). Essentially, Darwin’s idea lacked a demonstrable driving mechanism. For similar reasons, Wegener’s (1915) ideas on continental drift, a theory even more appealing than that of Darwin, was nonetheless widely rejected until the physical driving mechanism was identified as part of the plate tectonic synthesis (Oreskes 1999).

Darwin’s The Structure and Distribution of Coral Reefs (1842) was his most public pronouncement of his tectonic theory, although, to an uninformed observer, it might, at first, appear to be a contribution to the biological rather than geological sciences. It extended his theory from the continental to the oceanic realm (Rhodes 1991, p. 197). The book is concerned with vertical movements of the crust that encourage the growth of shallow water coral reefs, both elevation and subsidence, occurring slowly over long periods of time (Fig. 7). That is, the formation of reefs is inferred to have been a Lyellian process and was summarised as follows:

... it has already been shown ... that the movements [of the crust] must either have been uniform and exceedingly slow, or have been effected by small steps, separated from each other by long intervals of time, during which the reef-constructing polypifers were able to bring up their solid frame-works to the surface ... (p. 146) we may finally conclude, that the subterranean changes which have caused some large areas to rise, and others to subside, have acted in a very similar manner” - (Darwin 1842, p. 145).
When he returned from his voyage, Darwin was already known to its leaders [of all the scientific societies of the metropolis] as a young geologist of great promise, owing to the geological letters he had sent home from South America” - (Rudwick 1982, p. 190)

Fig2-1Skeleton of Mylodon sp.; height about 2.5m (after Darwin 1913, p. 140).

Darwin as a palaeontologist

There is nothing like geology; the pleasure of the first day’s partridge-shooting or first day’s hunting cannot be compared to finding a fine group of fossil bones, which tell their stories of former times with almost a living tongue” - (Darwin in Parodiz 1981, p. 43)

In South America, Darwin collected mainly fossil mammals, which he gave to Sir Richard Owen (1804-1893) to describe. Hunting fossil remains of gigantic quadrupeds, such as Mylodon (Fig. 1), along the Argentinean coast from Buenos Aires to Bahia Blanca, Darwin (1838) was struck by three remarkable facts:

  1. The bizarre and monstrous proportions of animals, which became extinct almost in recent times.
  2. Their peculiar geographical distribution.
  3. The simultaneous, almost incomprehensible disappearance of the whole fauna.

Together with the fossil mammals, he found shells identical to some existing in an adjoining bay, testifying that the gigantic animals became extinct in a very recent epoch. This also corroborated Lyell’s rule that the longevity of mammal species was shorter than that of mollusc species. However, there appeared to be no obvious reason for the sudden extinction of the complete fauna, since the elevation of the area had been slow and there were no signs of a catastrophe.

Fig2-3Chthamalus darwini Bosquet, 1856, from the Maastrichtian (Upper Cretaceous) near Maastricht, The Netherlands (after Bosquet, 1856, pl. 1, fig. 1).

After his return to Britain, Darwin carried out a major biological and palaeontological research programme of his own. He commenced a study, in minute detail, of all barnacles (both fossil and extant) – a laborious project that took him eight years to complete (Stott 2003). The result was a series of authoritative monographs that threw a new light on the cirripedes and which are still important references for barnacle researchers over 150 years after publication. The scrupulously careful anatomical investigations of the living species (Darwin 1851b, 1854b) gave him a deeper understanding of the fossil forms (Darwin 1851a, 1854a), which often existed only as minute loose parts of their shells. In this way, Darwin could determine, on a sound basis, which parts belonged together (Fig. 2) and which of the many existing names were synonyms. He was also able to fit the fossil forms into his systematic scheme. In addition, he tried to find out how the very distinct forms had adapted themselves to their different modes of life, and how organs had degenerated and eventually disappeared altogether when they no longer had a function. This research formed part of the solid base for On the Origin of Species, for which Darwin had already written an elaborate resume (just in case of his demise). However, he wanted to substantiate his ideas further before eventually publishing an expanded, but still provisional form, in 1859. As is generally known, his great work, comparable to Lyell’s three-volume ‘Principles’, was never completed to his satisfaction.

[Fig2-2 The nomenclature of the valves of fossil barnacles (after Darwin, 1851a, fig. I).

It is an interesting aside that, through his study of fossil barnacles, Darwin came into contact with the Dutchman, Joseph Augustin Hubert de Bosquet (1814-1880), a pharmacist and naturalist from Maastricht (Crouzen, 1994; Jagt 2004), whom he highly regarded. He donated to Darwin a magnificent collection of Upper Cretaceous barnacles from the surroundings of Maastricht and Darwin was really delighted when de Bosquet found, in the Maastrichtian, a sessile barnacle, Chthamalus darwini Bosquet, 1856 (Fig. 3). He had previously been convinced that these had started suddenly at the beginning of the Tertiary and were immediately quite diverse, which he found difficult to explain with his theory of evolution. A Cretaceous ancestor was just what he needed and he remarked that he would never again put any trust in negative geological evidence.

The geological roots of Darwin’s On the Origin of Species

Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection was presented as a biological application of geological principles (specifically Lyell’s)” - (O’Connor 2008, p. 437)

Darwin’s geological knowledge formed a solid base for the development and critical testing of his theory on the origin of species. He had a flair and personal preference for arranging facts in an all-embracing theory, like the combination of earthquakes, volcanism and the elevation of the South American continent in his theory of vertically moving plates (see Part 1 of this article). His theories, including ideas on icebergs and glaciation (see below), were not always successful, but the impact of his theory of evolution by means of natural selection greatly outweighed these failures.

First of all, the geological sense of time – thinking in terms of hundreds of millions of years instead of centuries – was of critical importance for Darwin to envisage the gradual development of life to its present-day, highly evolved state. Darwin even over-estimated the duration of the Tertiary as lasting 300myrs, several times in excess of modern radiometric dating (Rudwick 2008, p. 385, footnote 8; see also Burchfield 1974). The fossil record had proved, through the work of William Smith (1769-1839), to be a good tool to date the layers of the Earth relatively. This meant that life had clearly changed through time, the living beings becoming gradually more ‘complicated’ when approaching present times, as is to be expected according to Darwin’s theory of evolution.

He explained the general absence of transitional forms, apart from exceptions such as Archaeopteryx with its characteristics of both reptile and bird (“a grand case for me”; Darwin in a letter to Dana, 7 January, 1863; see Herbert 2005, p. 333), in the following way:

  • On the one hand, these transitional forms would have been rare, since the development would have gone quickly towards a complete adaptation to the new circumstances (from fluttering from one tree to the next, towards good flying capacities).
  • On the other hand, he was also fully aware that only a very small proportion of the diversity of animals and plants had been preserved as fossils, since most had decayed to unrecognisable fragments, and the rare fossil remains of animals without shells and bones were largely unknown (for a different perspective, see Donovan & Paul 1998). However, the enigmatic traces of Precambrian life required by Darwin are now much better known.

The large South American mammals, which had become recently extinct and which Darwin (1838) had immediately recognised as being related to forms still alive and restricted to that continent, suggested a close relationship. That is, the fossil forms were the direct ancestors of the living representatives. Also, as previously mentioned, Darwin’s research on both living and fossil barnacles formed a solid basis for his evolutionary ideas, as the modification or even loss of organs due to changing living conditions pointed to the importance of natural selection.

As far as sudden extinctions were concerned, Darwin assumed that the faunas (and floras) could have survived elsewhere in unexplored areas and the extinction could, therefore, have been more gradual. Nowadays, it is clear that there have been periods of geologically rapid mass extinction (which, incidentally, pose no problem for Darwin’s theory of evolution by means of natural selection, as the driving mechanisms are large scale physical processes). However, he was right that presumably extinct animals have survived in hidden corners, the coelacanth found in the deep water of the Indian Ocean being an excellent example. This view was quite popular in the nineteenth century and was admirably expressed in The Lost World (Conan Doyle 1912). The influence of Lyell, advocating that geological processes in the past had not been different from the present ones, not even in intensity, made Darwin an opponent of theories of catastrophism, although it is now recognised not to have been in contradiction with his evolutionary ideas. It is remarkable that Lyell only reluctantly adhered to Darwin’s evolutionary theory and was not completely convinced until 1869 (Simpson 1970, p. 54). This was despite the fact that his ideas had been a great influence on Darwin and formed an excellent explanation, completely according to his views of gradual changes, for the changes of species over time.

Darwin on icebergs and ancient glaciations

¼ many glaciers beryl blue most beautiful contrasted with snow” - (Darwin in field notebook, in Patagonia)

Darwin’s (1842) last serious fieldwork was in Snowdonia in North Wales, describing boulder deposits on a striated basement. This was in accordance with the views of, among others, the Reverend William Buckland (1784-1856), that they had been formed by glaciers. However, other boulders did not show the features typical for glaciers, but appeared to have been deposited in the sea on gently dipping surfaces before these had been elevated.

Distortion of the beds could have been caused by icebergs grating over the surface, shattering the soft slate in the same way as they appear to have contorted the sedimentary beds on the east coast of England (Lyell 1840). Darwin compared these with deposits of till he had seen in Tierra del Fuego, which were formed by icebergs calved off from glaciers coming down from the Andes to the coast. The Welsh deposits of irregularly stratified gravel and boulders looked rather similar to beds with marine shells in Shropshire and Staffordshire. The remote origin of some of the pebbles supported Darwin’s opinion that they had been transported by icebergs and he compared the situation with present day Spitsbergen (Svalbard).

Darwin assumed that the British Isles had been lower and partly covered by a sea in which the icebergs would have floated. However, he was reluctant to accept the glacial origin of the “parallel roads” since it made his publication on Glen Roy almost ridiculous (see Part 1). Although he considered that a cooler climate was the reason for glaciers on local hills and the forming of icebergs, he – like Lyell – was against the land ice theory of Agassiz or, rather, that of Venetz and Charpentier (Rudwick 2008, pp. 518, 536-537).


When we celebrated 200 years since his birth and 150 years since publication of On the Origin of Species in 2009, Darwin the biologist received ample public exposure. Yet, when he sailed on HMS Beagle, Darwin travelled as an aspiring geologist. That he attained his aspiration may be judged, not least, by the award of the Wollaston Medal to Darwin in 1859, the greatest accolade of the Geological Society. If Darwin’s geological enquiries waned as his biological research waxed, it did not make them any less remarkable. Rather, Darwin was a geologist whose attainments in that field were notable and comparable with those of his illustrious contemporaries such as Lyell, De la Beche, Murchison and Phillips.


Barrett, P.H. 1974. The Sedgwick-Darwin geologic tour of North Wales. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 118, 146-164.

Beche, H.T. De la. 1831. A Geological Manual. London, xii+535 pp.

Brouwer, A. 1976. Charles Lyell and Charles Darwin. Geologie en Mijnbouw, 55, 213-217.

Darwin, C. 1838a. A sketch of the deposits containing extinct Mammalia in the neighbourhood of the Plata. Proceedings of the Geological Society, 2, 542-544.

Darwin, C. 1838b. Observations of proofs of recent elevation on the coast of Chili, made during the survey of His Majesty’s Ship Beagle, commanded by Capt. Fitzroy, R.N. Proceedings of the Geological Society, 2, 446-449.

Darwin, C. 1838c. On certain areas of elevation and subsidence in the Pacific and Indian Oceans, as deduced from the study of coral formations. Proceedings of the Geological Society, 2, 552-554.

Darwin, C. 1839a. Observations on the parallel roads of Glen Roy, and other parts of Lochaber in Scotland, with an attempt to prove that they are of marine origin. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 129, 39-81.

Darwin, C. 1839b. Journal and remarks 1832-1836. Narrative of the surveying voyages of His Majesty’s ships Adventure and Beagle, between the years 1826 and 1836, describing their examination of the southern shores of South America, and the Beagle’s circumnavigation of the globe, vol. 3. [Not seen]

Darwin, C. 1840. On the connexion of certain volcanic phenomena in South America, and on the formation of mountain chains and volcanos, as the effect of the same power by which continents are elevated. Transactions of the Geological Society (2nd series), 5, 601-631.

Darwin, C. 1842. The Structure and Distribution of Coral Reefs. Being the First Part of the Geology of the Voyage of the Beagle. Smith, Elder & Co., London, 214 pp.

Darwin, C. 1849. Geology. In: Herschel, J.F.W. (ed.), A Manual of Scientific Enquiry; Prepared for the Use of Her Majesty’s Navy: and Adapted for Travellers in General. Murray, London: 156-195. [Not seen.]+684.

Darwin, C. 1859. On the Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection, or, the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. John Murray, London, ix+502 pp.

Darwin, C. 1983. Autobiography. In: Beer, G. de (ed.), Charles Darwin and T.H. Huxley: Autobiographies: 8-88. Oxford University Press, Oxford. [Written 1876-1881.]

Greenough, G.B. 1820. A geological map of England and Wales. London.

Herbert, S. 1991. Charles Darwin as a prospective geological author. British Journal for the History of Science, 24: 159-192.

Herbert, S. 2005. Charles Darwin, Geologist. Cornell University Press, Ithaca: xx+485

Jenyns, L. 1862. Memoir of the Rev. John Stevens Henslow M.A., F.L.S., F.G.S., F.C.P.S., late Rector of Hitcham and Professor of Botany in the University of Cambridge. John Van Voorst, London, ix+278 pp.

Lyell, C. 1830-1833. Principles of Geology, being an attempt to explain the former changes of the earth’s surface, by reference to causes now in operation, vol. 1-3. J. Murray, London. [Facsimile reproduction University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1990-1991.]

Oreskes, N. 1999. The Rejection of Continental Drift: Theory and Method in American Earth Sciences. Oxford University Press, New York, xi+420 pp.

Rhodes, F.H.T. 1991. Darwin’s search for a theory of the earth: symmetry, simplicity and speculation. British Journal for the History of Science, 24, 193-229.

Roberts, M.B. 1996. Darwin at Llanmynech: the evolution of a geologist. British Journal for the History of Science, 29, 469-478.

Roberts, M.B. 2001. Just before the Beagle: Charles Darwin’s geological fieldwork in Wales, summer 1831. Endeavour, 25 (1), 33-37.

Rudwick, M.J.S. 1982. Charles Darwin in London: the integration of public and private science. Isis, 73, 186-206.

Rudwick, M.J.S. 2004. Bursting the limits of time: the reconstruction of geohistory in the Age of Revolution. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, xxiv+732 pp.

Rudwick, M.J.S. 2008. Worlds before Adam: the reconstruction of geohistory in the Age of Reform. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, xxii+614 pp.

Secord, J.A. 1991. The discovery of a vocation: Darwin’s early geology. British Journal for the History of Science, 24, 133-157.

Wegener, A. 1915. Die Entstehung der Kontinente und Ozeane. Sammlung Viehweg; Tagesfragen aus den Gebieten der Naturwissnschaften und der Technik, 23: iv+94 pp.

Bosquet, J.A.H. 1856. Notice sur quelques Cirripèdes récemment découverts dans le terrain crétacé du Duché de Limbourg. Natuurkundige Verhandelingen van de Hollandsche Maatschappij der Wetenschappen te Haarlem (2de verzameling) 13 (3), iv+36 pp.

Burchfield, J.D. 1974. Darwin and the dilemma of geological time. Isis 65, 301-321.

Conan Doyle, A. 1912. The Lost World: Being an Account of the Recent amazing adventures of Professor George E. Challenger, Lord John Roxton, Professor Summerlee, and Mr. E.D. Malone of the “Daily Gazette.” Hodder and Stoughton, London, 319 pp.

Crouzen, L.J.M. 1994. J. de Bosquet en C. Darwin: lotgenoten in zeepokken. Natuurhistorisch Maandblad 83 (6), 107-113.

Darwin, C. 1838. A sketch of the deposits containing extinct Mammalia in the neighbourhood of the Plata. Proceedings of the Geological Society 2, 542-544.

Darwin, C. 1842. Notes on the effects produced by the ancient glaciers of Caernarvonshire and on the boulders transported by floating ice. London, Edinburgh and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science (series 3) 21, 180-188.

Darwin, C. 1851a. A monograph on the fossil Lepadidae, or, pedunculated cirripedes of Great Britain. Monograph of the Palaeontographical Society, London 5 (13), vi+88 pp.

Darwin, C. 1851b. A monograph on the Subclass Cirripedia, with figures of all the species. 1. The Lapapidae; or Pedunculated Cirripedes. Publications of the Ray Society, 21, xi+400 pp.

Darwin, C. 1854a. A monograph on the fossil Balanidae and Verrucidae of Great Britain. Monograph of the Palaeontographical Society, London 8 (30), vi+44 pp.

Darwin, C. 1854b. A monograph on the Subclass Cirripedia, with figures of all the species. 2. The Balanidae, or sessile Cirripedes; the Verrucidae, etc., etc. Publications of the Ray Society 25, viii+684 pp.

Darwin, C. 1859. On the Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection, or, the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. John Murray, London, ix+502 pp.

Darwin, C. 1913. Journal of Researches into the Natural History and Geology of the Countries visited during the Voyage round the world of H.M.S. ‘Beagle’ under the command of Captain Fitz Roy, R.N. J. Murray, London: XVIII + 551 pp. [An edition with illustrations by R.T. Pritchett of places visited and objects described.]

Donovan, S.K. & Paul, C.R.C. (eds). 1998. The Adequacy of the Fossil Record. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, x+312 pp.

Herbert, S. 2005. Charles Darwin, Geologist. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, xx+485 pp.

Jagt, J.W.M. 2004. Een Maastrichts apotheker en zijn fossiele zeepokken: een kwestie van groeiend zelfvertrouwen? Natuurhistorisch Maandblad 93, 334-336.

Lyell, C. 1840. On the Boulder Formation of eastern Norfolk. London, Edinburgh and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science (series 3) 16, 351.

O’Connor, R. 2008. The Earth on Show: Fossils and the Poetics of Popular Science, 1802-1856. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, xiii+541 pp.

Parodiz, J.J. 1981. Darwin in the New World. Brill, Leiden, 137 pp.

Rudwick, M.J.S. 1982. Charles Darwin in London: the integration of public and private science. Isis 73, 186-206.

Rudwick, M.J.S. 2008. Worlds before Adam: The Reconstruction of Geohistory in the Age of Reform. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, xxii+614 pp.

Simpson, G.G. 1970. 2. Uniformitarianism. An inquiry into principle, theory, and method in geohistory and biohistory. In: Hecht, M.K. & Steere, W.C. (eds), Essays in Evolution and Genetics in Honor of Theodosius Dobzhansky. Appleton-Century Crofts, New York, 43-96.

Stott, R. 2003. Darwin and the Barnacle. Faber and Faber, London, xxv+309 pp.

♦ Buy Fossils, Crystals, Tools
♦ Subscribe to Deposits
♦ Join Fossil Hunts
♦ UK Fossil Locations