Dear Sir—

Your kind note has but now been delivered to me, otherwise I should made a point of replying before—²

The assertions made in the Article in the ‘Times’ to which you refer are erroneous—³ so erroneous indeed, both on the matter of the deposits and the sounding gear, that I thought it advisable to address the Editors giving a correct but very brief statement of facts, with my name—for insertion. For reasons best known to themselves no notice whatsoever was taken of my communication—

I had pointed out whilst at sea that the surface layer of the Foraminiferous deposit sometimes differed in certain respects from the substratum. The difference being due to the fact that whilst live Globigerinæ occurred in the former, retaining the brownish-yellow color of their Sarcodic contents in the latter they only occurred dead the color of the sarcode being thus rendered dusky at the same time that a larger proportion of decayed animal & vegetable matter contributed to the difference— This statement was twisted into a declaration that “by these contrivances not only were soundings rendered more certain but very often the understratum of the bottom was found to be composed of entirely different material from that which lay upon the surface, & which was ordinarily brought up by the rod or lead in ordinary deep sea soundings”! The Italics are mine—

I have no doubt that the Foraminferous as well as all other deep sea deposits vary greatly in thickness—   Until soundings & surveys are conducted in a much more systematic and searching manner, it is almost impossible to arrive at anything like positive results—   For instance where the intervals between Soundings extend from 20 to 70 miles, I maintain that we cannot pronounce upon the general character of the bottom—or do much more than suggest what may be the character of the intervals. But there is I think quite sufficient evidence to shew that in many portions of the deep sea bed, the deposits are of no great thickness. At times we come across deposits of great thickness (several inches, for that is the limit to which any form of sounding apparatus hitherto employed has been able to penetrate) but almost entirely deficient in either minute calcareous or silicious organic remains. On the other hand we meet with deposits in which the entire mass is composed of nearly pure Globigerina shells, alive & dead, as in the cases I just referred to. I do not see how to account for this remarkable fact except on the supposition that in the former instance the deposits are the result of some sediment-laden current, flowing along slowly at great depths in all probability—whereas, in the latter, currents charged with nutritive matter necessary for the increase and perpetuation of the Rhizopodous population, cause it to flourish only within given limits—   In the course traversed by the Bulldog I observed that wheresoever it was possible for the Gulf Stream to send off a ramification, Globigerina was to be met with. Where a main branch of that stream was known to flow, these organisms were in greatest profusion & in the most flourishing condition. And wheresoever the influence of the Gulf stream was either absent or imperceptible (as for instance between Greenland & Labrador) the Globigerinæ and indeed all other minute organisms were almost altogether unrepresented—

As regards the occurrence of bare rock I would observe that at 682 Fathoms between the Farœ Islands & Iceland I obtained a living Serpula, the stout calcareous tube of which was broken—together with several pieces of stone & but a faint trace of mud— From this I cannot help inferring that the bottom was comparatively bare of deposit—   The Serpula could not have lived imbedded—   Its size necessitated its being attached to some object of considerable size. One Stone weighed about an ounce. No ice or glacial drift now passes along this part of the sea— I cannot believe that large tracts are bare—but strange to say the sounding in which the Serpula & stones occurred with so little admixture of mud is the deepest we encountered between the points named—the last place in short at which we should a priori have inferred the existence of bare rock or gravel! The interval between this sounding and those on either side of it was very great—   Alas I had no voice in determining where to sound.

Sir Chas Lyell has convinced me that I rushed at a far too hasty conclusion on the matter of the deep currents as producing abrasion & rounding of gravel— The presence of littoral Foraminifera tempted me somewhat too forcibly, I suppose— Although no Glacial drift occurs now at the points referred to, it is, as he and yourself suggest, far more likely that the gravel is an ancient glacial deposit—and of course I bow reverently and with implicit confidence under such authority— Hereafter the error shall be duly corrected—

The occurrence of the Ophiocomæ 13 in number is indeed a wonderful fact—⁴ I cannot concieve the presence of any free gas possible at the depth at